For everyone I sent my SmartBlocks to, please check the link again. I've made some new updates and added dedicated tabs for Taxation and Case Principles.
Mr. John Smith, a widower, owns an estate valued at £1,200,000. He has two adult children. He wishes to reduce his potential Inheritance Tax (IHT) liability. In April 2025, he makes a gift of £350,000 to his daughter. He has made no other gifts in the past seven years. What is the immediate Inheritance Tax consequence of this gift?
AThe gift is a Potentially Exempt Transfer (PET) and will become exempt after seven years.
BThe gift is a Chargeable Lifetime Transfer (CLT) and will incur an immediate IHT charge.
CThe gift is fully exempt from IHT due to the annual exemption.
DThe gift is a PET, but a portion of it will be immediately chargeable to IHT.
EThe gift is a CLT, but no IHT will be payable immediately due to the nil-rate band.
I’ve seen so many people saying they’re not feeling ready for the SQE1, so I thought I’d share something that might help.
🎓 I'm giving away my FREE BLP SQE1 Revision Blocks for anyone who needs a quick, high-yield revision resource in the final weeks before the exam.
These blocks are designed to help you consolidate your knowledge, refresh the black letter law, and revise the key principles quickly without having to go through hundreds of pages of notes.
I genuinely hope they help someone. ❤️
I'm also working on creating a platform with FREE SQE notes, MCQs, revision blocks, and other study resources because I believe the legal profession should be accessible to everyone. Too many people are struggling with the cost of preparation, and not everything should be hidden behind a paywall.
If these revision blocks help you, please share them with someone else who might benefit.
Good luck with your revision—you've got this! 💙
Horizon Innovations Ltd, a company specialising in bespoke software development, has been experiencing severe financial difficulties for the past 18 months. The directors, Sarah and Mark, continued to trade despite knowing that the company was insolvent and that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding liquidation. During this period, they prioritised payments to a key supplier, 'Tech Solutions Plc', which is owned by Sarah's brother, for goods supplied on normal commercial terms. These payments amounted to £50,000 and were made three months before Horizon Innovations Ltd entered compulsory liquidation. The company also sold a valuable patent, its primary intellectual property asset, to a newly formed company owned by Mark's wife for £10,000, when its market value was independently assessed at £100,000. This sale occurred six months before liquidation. The liquidator is now investigating potential claims against the directors and transactions. Horizon Innovations Ltd has unsecured creditors totalling £500,000 and a bank with a valid floating charge over all assets for £200,000, which crystallised upon liquidation. The company's remaining assets are valued at £150,000.
AThe payment to Tech Solutions Plc is a preference, and the sale of the patent is a transaction at undervalue, both of which can be challenged by the liquidator. Sarah and Mark may also be liable for wrongful trading.
BThe payment to Tech Solutions Plc is not a preference as it was for goods supplied on normal commercial terms. However, the sale of the patent is a transaction at undervalue, and Sarah and Mark are liable for wrongful trading.
CThe payment to Tech Solutions Plc is a preference due to the connected party relationship, and the sale of the patent is a transaction at undervalue. Sarah and Mark may also be liable for wrongful trading.
DNeither the payment to Tech Solutions Plc nor the sale of the patent can be challenged, as the payments were for normal commercial terms and the patent sale was completed more than three months before liquidation. Sarah and Mark are not liable for wrongful trading as they did not act fraudulently.
EThe payment to Tech Solutions Plc is a preference, but the sale of the patent is not a transaction at undervalue because it was made to a third party. Sarah and Mark are only liable for fraudulent trading if they intended to defraud creditors.
Confirm Answer
Mr. Arthur Jenkins, a sole trader, purchased a vintage car in 2010 for £50,000. He used it exclusively for personal enjoyment and never for business purposes, keeping it garaged at his home. In 2025, after careful consideration, he decided to sell the car for £75,000 to a private collector. Additionally, he sold a painting he inherited from his grandmother in 2000 for £2,000, which had a probate value of £2,000. The painting was always displayed in his home and was never used for any commercial activity. Mr. Jenkins is seeking comprehensive advice on his Capital Gains Tax (CGT) liability for these disposals, specifically whether these assets are considered 'chargeable' under current legislation. Assume his annual exempt amount for the 2025/2026 tax year is £3,000, and he has no other gains or losses to consider.
AThe vintage car is a chattel and exempt from CGT as it was used for personal enjoyment. The painting is also exempt as it was inherited.
BBoth the vintage car and the painting are chargeable assets. Mr. Jenkins will have a CGT liability on both disposals after deducting the annual exempt amount.
CThe vintage car is a wasting asset and exempt from CGT. The painting is a chattel, and as its proceeds are below £6,000, it is exempt from CGT.
DThe vintage car is a chattel, and as its proceeds are above £6,000, it is a chargeable asset. The painting is also a chattel, and as its proceeds are above £6,000, it is a chargeable asset.
EThe vintage car is a chattel, and as its proceeds are below £6,000, it is exempt from CGT. The painting is a chattel, and as its proceeds are below £6,000, it is exempt from CGT.
Beta Ltd, a UK-resident company, has an accounting period from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025. Its taxable profits for this period are £100,000. The corporation tax main rate for financial year 2025 (starting 1 April 2025) is 25%, and the small profits rate is 19% for profits up to £50,000, with marginal relief for profits between £50,000 and £250,000. For financial year 2024 (ending 31 March 2025), the main rate was 19%. Which of the following statements correctly describes how Beta Ltd’s corporation tax liability will be calculated for its accounting period?
AThe entire £100,000 profit will be taxed at the 25% main rate, as the accounting period ends after 1 April 2025.
BThe entire £100,000 profit will be taxed at the 19% small profits rate, as it is below the £250,000 upper limit.
CThe profits will be time-apportioned between the financial year 2024 and financial year 2025, and different rates applied accordingly.
DThe company will pay tax at the 19% rate on the first £50,000 and 25% on the remaining £50,000.
EThe company will pay tax at the 25% rate on the first £50,000 and 19% on the remaining £50,000.
Beta Ltd, a UK-resident company, has an accounting period from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025. Its taxable profits for this period are £100,000. The corporation tax main rate for financial year 2025 (starting 1 April 2025) is 25%, and the small profits rate is 19% for profits up to £50,000, with marginal relief for profits between £50,000 and £250,000. For financial year 2024 (ending 31 March 2025), the main rate was 19%. Which of the following statements correctly describes how Beta Ltd’s corporation tax liability will be calculated for its accounting period?
AThe entire £100,000 profit will be taxed at the 25% main rate, as the accounting period ends after 1 April 2025.
BThe entire £100,000 profit will be taxed at the 19% small profits rate, as it is below the £250,000 upper limit.
CThe profits will be time-apportioned between the financial year 2024 and financial year 2025, and different rates applied accordingly.
DThe company will pay tax at the 19% rate on the first £50,000 and 25% on the remaining £50,000.
EThe company will pay tax at the 25% rate on the first £50,000 and 19% on the remaining £50,000.
Gemma mistakenly transfers £5,000 to Harry"s bank account, intending to pay a different supplier. Harry, noticing the unexpected deposit, assumes it"s a bonus from his employer and spends £2,000 of it on a new television. When Gemma realises her error, she contacts Harry to demand the return of the money. Harry refuses, claiming he believed it was rightfully his. Which of the following elements of unjust enrichment is most clearly present in Gemma"s claim against Harry?
AHarry has been enriched by the receipt of the £5,000.
BThe enrichment was at Gemma"s expense.
CThe enrichment was unjust due to Gemma"s mistake.
DHarry has no defence to the claim.
EAll of the above elements are clearly present.
Eleanor has been operating a successful graphic design business, 'Eleanor's Designs', as a sole trader for the past five years. She has built a strong client base and her annual turnover has steadily increased. Recently, she secured a major contract with a large national retailer, which will significantly expand her operations and require her to hire additional staff. Eleanor is concerned about her personal liability if the business were to face financial difficulties or legal claims arising from this new contract. She also wants to understand the tax implications of her current structure versus potentially incorporating a company. Her friend, a limited company director, mentioned that incorporating could offer her more protection and potentially reduce her tax burden. Eleanor is particularly worried about the concept of unlimited liability and how it might impact her personal assets, including her family home, if the business were to fail. She is also considering taking on a business partner in the near future and wants to know how her current structure would accommodate this, or if a change would be necessary. She seeks advice on the most appropriate business structure for her expanding venture, considering liability, taxation, and future growth plans. She is aware that her business name is currently unregistered and wonders if this is an issue.
AEleanor's personal assets, including her home, are entirely separate from her business assets, offering her full protection from business debts and liabilities as a sole trader.
BConverting to a limited company would automatically exempt Eleanor from paying National Insurance contributions, leading to significant savings.
CAs a sole trader, Eleanor faces unlimited personal liability for all business debts and obligations, meaning her personal assets are at risk if the business fails, and she is taxed as a self-employed individual.
DA sole trader cannot hire employees or take on a business partner without immediately being forced to convert to a limited company structure.
ERegistering her business name, 'Eleanor's Designs', with Companies House is a mandatory legal requirement for all sole traders in England and Wales.
Dr. Eleanor Vance, a leading pharmaceutical researcher, developed 'Neuro-Regen', a ground-breaking drug designed to repair nerve damage. The drug underwent extensive clinical trials, meeting all regulatory approvals in 2022. The trials, conducted over five years, showed no adverse side effects. Neuro-Regen was released to the market in early 2023. By late 2024, several patients who had been prescribed Neuro-Regen began to develop a rare and severe form of liver failure. Medical investigations revealed a previously unknown metabolic pathway interaction, unique to a small percentage of the population, which caused the liver damage when Neuro-Regen was ingested. This interaction was scientifically undetectable using the best available medical and scientific knowledge at the time of the drug's development and release. A group of affected patients is now seeking to bring a claim against Dr. Vance's pharmaceutical company under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987).
AThe pharmaceutical company will be strictly liable for the liver failure as Neuro-Regen is defective, and the development risks defence is unlikely to succeed given the severity of the harm.
BThe pharmaceutical company will not be liable because the liver failure was caused by a rare, unforeseeable metabolic interaction, not a defect in the drug itself.
CThe pharmaceutical company will likely successfully argue the 'development risks' defence under the CPA 1987, as the defect was not discoverable at the time of supply using the best scientific knowledge.
DThe pharmaceutical company will be liable because, as a manufacturer, it has a non-delegable duty to ensure its products are absolutely safe, regardless of scientific discoverability.
EThe patients' claim will fail because the drug received full regulatory approval, which absolves the manufacturer of liability under the CPA 1987.
A director commits a breach of duty but all members of the company, being fully informed, unanimously consent to the breach. The company is solvent. What is the consequence?
A law firm, "Legal Solutions LLP," publishes an article on its website titled "Investing Your Compensation: A Guide for Personal Injury Claimants." The article discusses various investment options, such as ISAs, pensions, and property, and highlights the potential benefits of each. It also includes a disclaimer stating that the article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Is this article likely to be considered a financial promotion under FSMA 2000 s.21?
A No, because it is for informational purposes only and includes a disclaimer.
B Yes, because it is an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity.
C No, because it does not recommend specific investment products.
D Yes, but only if it is targeted at specific individuals rather than the general public.
E No, because law firms are exempt from financial promotion rules.
A law firm, "Legal Solutions LLP," publishes an article on its website titled "Investing Your Compensation: A Guide for Personal Injury Claimants." The article discusses various investment options, such as ISAs, pensions, and property, and highlights the potential benefits of each. It also includes a disclaimer stating that the article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Is this article likely to be considered a financial promotion under FSMA 2000 s.21?
A No, because it is for informational purposes only and includes a disclaimer.
B Yes, because it is an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity.
C No, because it does not recommend specific investment products.
D Yes, but only if it is targeted at specific individuals rather than the general public.
E No, because law firms are exempt from financial promotion rules.
Horizon Logistics Ltd ('Horizon'), a haulage company, is facing severe financial difficulties. Its main creditor is National Bank ('the Bank'), which holds a valid floating charge over all of Horizon's assets, granted two years ago. The charge document includes a clause stating that the charge will crystallise automatically upon the appointment of an administrator or a liquidator. Horizon's directors, aware of the impending insolvency, recently sold a prime warehouse property to a connected company, 'Storage Solutions Ltd', for a significantly undervalued price, 18 months ago. Horizon also repaid an unsecured loan of £50,000 to its managing director's sister, who was aware of Horizon's financial distress, three months before the presentation of a winding-up petition. The directors are now considering voluntary liquidation. The liquidator will need to maximise returns for creditors. Which of the following actions is the liquidator MOST likely to successfully challenge?
A The crystallisation of the floating charge held by National Bank upon the appointment of the liquidator.
B The sale of the warehouse property to Storage Solutions Ltd for a significantly undervalued price.
C The repayment of the £50,000 unsecured loan to the managing director's sister.
D The validity of the floating charge held by National Bank.
E The decision by Horizon's directors to enter voluntary liquidation.
'Builder B' contracts with 'Client C' to construct an extension to Client C's house. The contract specifies that Builder B must obtain all necessary planning permissions. Builder B commences work without obtaining planning permission, which is a statutory requirement. What is the likely legal consequence of Builder B's failure to obtain planning permission?
AThe contract is void for illegality at formation.
BThe contract is valid, but Builder B is in breach of contract.
CThe contract is voidable at the option of Client C.
DThe contract is illegal in performance, and Builder B may not be able to enforce payment.
EThe contract is frustrated due to the unforeseen legal requirement.
Your client, a prominent civil liberties campaigner, is concerned about a new piece of legislation, the 'Emergency Powers Act 2025', recently passed by the UK Parliament. The Act grants the Executive extensive powers to detain individuals without charge for up to 90 days in times of national emergency, and explicitly states that 'no court shall have jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of any detention made under this Act'. Your client believes this Act fundamentally undermines the rule of law and the separation of powers, and wants to know what legal challenges can be mounted against it, particularly given the ouster clause. She asks for advice on the most accurate description of the constitutional implications of this Act and the likely success of a challenge based on fundamental constitutional principles.
AThe Act is likely unconstitutional and can be struck down by the Supreme Court because it violates the principle of the rule of law and the separation of powers by removing judicial oversight.
BWhile the Act represents a significant departure from constitutional norms, Parliament, being sovereign, has the ultimate authority to enact such legislation, and the courts are bound to apply it, even with the ouster clause.
CThe Act, despite its ouster clause, could potentially be challenged on the basis that certain fundamental constitutional principles, such as access to justice and the rule of law, are so deeply embedded in the UK constitution that Parliament's intention to abrogate them entirely may be subject to judicial scrutiny, though success is not guaranteed.
DThe ouster clause is ineffective as it attempts to remove the inherent jurisdiction of the courts, which is a core aspect of the separation of powers and cannot be overridden by Parliament.
EThe Act is valid and unchallengeable because Parliament has acted within its legislative competence, and the courts must defer to the will of the democratically elected legislature, especially in matters of national security.
