In Gartside v Commissioners of Inland Revenue[1967] UKHL 6, [1968] AC 553 (13 December 1967), House of Lords (UK) it was argued that because a beneficiary might receive all the income, he should be treated as being entitled to all of the income, however, the House of Lords held that it could not be said that any individual beneficiary under a discretionary trust was entitled to any quantifiable share.
In Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Duke of Westminster[1935] UKHL 4, [1936] AC 1 at p 19, House of Lords (UK) the House of Lords asserted "Every man is entitled to do what he can to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be".
