The Assets Schedule
39.I now turn to consider the Assets Schedule. Fortunately, other than in relation to add-back, it is almost entirely agreed. I will resolve the remaining issues later in this judgment but, in very broad terms, the position is as follows. The net equity of NN is agreed at £20,952,000 subject to Capital Gains Tax. There is a dispute as to that. If the property is sold, the total tax is (£632,956) but, if it is transferred to the Wife, the tax reduces to (£342,762). The value of the farm at BT is £20,017,264 after tax. The Husband has funds of £2,374,198 , although the Wife seeks to add-back various items, particularly the costs spent on the mistake/recission claim to bring the figure to £2,900,953. He has liabilities of (£102,105). The Wife has the funds transferred to her in 2017, now worth £80,037,805. She has funds of her own of £1,095,144, although the Husband seeks to add-back excessive expenditure to bring the total to £4,293,617. She has l liabilities of (£16,818). Finally, there are some joint assets with a value of £1,565,155 but these almost entirely consist of the contents at NN. On top of these figures, there are business and trust assets, which is basically the value of the farm business at BT in the sum of £8,567,121. The Husband’s case is that the total assets should be taken at £137,146,415. The Wife says the figure should be £133,202,721.
- MR JUSTICE MOOR:-
- The relevant history
- The litigation
- Valuation evidence
- Final open proposals
- The Assets Schedule
- Property Particulars
- Costs
- The respective Position Statements
- Duxbury
- Tinker v Tinker
- Lambert
- The Law I must apply
- White v White
- K v L
- Miller/McFarlane
- Hart v Hart
- Miller
- Jones v Jones
- Martin
- WM v HM
- my emphasis)
- Sharp v Sharp
- S v AG
- S v S
- Vaughan
- FB v PS
- The factual issues
- Sharp
- VV v VV
