I'm loathe to resort to argument from authority but the summary is that I've been doing this for 20 years and I'm confident that none of this applies. In slightly longer form:
As I understand a Settlement is supposed to include any transfer of assets except outright gift to spouse(not clear about an outright gift to another person).
> It can but see below.
Also the law states that if any property or related property "will or become so payable or applicable to the benefit of settlor or settlors spouse in any circumstances" then the law applies. In my case it the circumstance could be I inherit from my mother.
> The "settlor" does not have an interest in the "settlement" just because he could benefit by an independent act of a third party. West v Trennery  STC 580, 601 and to some extent, common sense.
WRT to transfer of assets legislation I'm bothered by following conditions
"power to enjoy - condition c" which states "that the individual recieves or is entitled to recieve at any time any benefit provided or to be provided out of the income or related money" for example I might gain through inheritance.
> only if you had created some arrangement/mechanism whereby you could or might benefit. The possibility a third party might leave it to you does not count.
"power to enjoy - condition d" which states "that the individual may become entitled to the beneficial enjoyment of the income if one or more powers are exercised or successively exercised by whomsoever". For example my mother has the power to write a WILL in my favour.
> "power" has a specific technical meaning here.
Also in irc v Botnar the Judge held that Mr. Botnar had the power to enjoy the income of the Trust as he could influence his friend who was the protector of the trust to transfer the property of the trust to another trust through which he could benefit. In my case it can be argued that I can influence my mother.
> that was dealing with a trust structure and it was clear that they did in fact intent to get the funds to Mr Botnar. It was superceded by West v Trennery.
Maybe I don't fully understand the law and 'am reading only bits and pieces and panicking.
> If it did apply then anybody making a gift of money to another person would have to be taxed on the interest or other income that came out of it. That just isn't the case (there are special provisions relating to parents and minor children which would not be necessary if this were the case).