Danske Bank International S.A. Head of Legal and Compliance claimed in Court that he could not recall if his client- the bank- gave tax advice to property owners abroad, but he thinks they did not.

Also, he was adamant that the bank’s understanding of the Capital Assurance product -in respect to IHT benefits- was that such benefits would be achieved by placing the loan in a Unit-Linked offshore based insurance policy, and never by reducing the value of the property.

The man, Ole Stenersen¬†–whether through lack of sleep or a late heavy (another one) night out- was clearly confused. Firstly, he warned that he was no tax expert on the Capital Assurance scheme only to later dissect the financial product on the basis of its tax avoidance functionality.

Later he said that KPMG had only asked them (DB) to remove their name (KPMG), and confirmed that KPMG never questioned the tax advice that was given by Danske Bank, which according to Ole scrupulously followed KPMGs findings.

Finally, he insisted that their advertising material at no point stated that by taking out a mortgage would the customer reduce -legally- the value of the property.

Not to worry Ole, we are aware the flight from Luxembourg must have been long and the trip to Fuengirola arduous and so, at ERVA, we will lend you a hand with the homework by refreshing your selective memory with an IHT manual that is actually…¬†your own publicity.

We hope you now remember better what was your employer exactly doing in Spain. 

(It defies logic what little respect you show for your own clients’ intelligence, your own banking system and, not the least, the Spanish Court system:¬†if you’d been deposed in the UK you would have automatically been charged with perjury).