Case No. EWFC-136
Family Court

Case No. EWFC-136

Fecha: 02-Nov-2022

£1,395,541

. In so far as there are any tax consequences of her exceeding the Life Time Allowance, she will be responsible for that tax. 78.Finally, I turn to her income provision. She gave some very frank and helpful evidence about her future income needs that the court accepts in full. She considered that her income needs would reduce as she got older. She told me that she felt that her current income needs were £200,000 per annum but this would reduce to £160,000 per annum at the age of 60 and £120,000 at the age of 68 onwards. I consider this to be realistic and appropriate. I take those figures.79.She then assesses her earned income at £48,000 per annum gross from the age of 55 to 58 and then self-employed income at the rate of £80,000 per annum from age 59 to 67. I have been slightly troubled that these figures may be too high. I have rejected the Husband’s case that she could obtain a high-flying senior management role. Equally, whilst I recognise that her SCo business was very successful, it is amazing how many similar business fail, even when the entrepreneur has great experience of the industry and has been very successful in other ventures. Nevertheless, I take the view that I should accept her figures as she is very determined and does know the bottled water industry extremely well.80.Finally, she takes her pension receipts at being £40,500 per annum. Although this may be slightly reduced by the fact that I have awarded her slightly less by way of pension share, overall it is good enough. The resulting Duxbury calculation shows a capital sum required of £2,092,579. I accept that figure.81.This gives an overall need of:-(a)London home £3,841,250(b)Ski apartment £1,068,541(c)Holiday home £1,068,541(d)Duxbury sum £2,092,579(e)Pensions £1,395,541Total £9,466,452