was the main objective, the mother could not possibly have intended it to be an outright gift. The last situation where a presumed resulting trust is created is if the court can rebut the presumption of an outright gift. The general philosophy here was set out by James LJ in Fowkes v Pascoe, and is that the judge should base his decision on "[the] story as to how I came to have [the property], and judge that story with reference to the surrounding facts and circumstances". Where the property is money held in a joint bank account, the presumption is that it is a joint tenancy of that account. As such, when one dies the property is passed absolutely to the other, as in Marshall v Crutwell. This presumption can be rebutted in several situations. It will be rebutted when the account, while in the name of both the husband and wife, is used exclusively for the husband's personal use, as in Young v Sealey, or where the joint account exists solely so the husband can guarantee the wife's account, as in Anson v Anson. Tax avoidance (which is legal, as opposed to tax evasion) frequently involves transferring property to a family member to avoid tax. Where the family member refuses to transfer it back, the taxpayer can come to court and argue it was a resulting trust. Illegality Traditionally, when a person sought to rebut presumptions but was required to rely on an illegal act to prove that a resulting trust was intended, the equitable maxim that "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands" was applied; the presumption would take effect, and no resulting trust would be created, as in Mucklestone v Brown. In addition, as in Gascoigne v Gascoigne, where the purpose of the transfer involves illegality, the courts will not uphold it as a resulting trust. This rule was subtly modified by the House of Lords decision in Tinsley v Milligan. Tinsley and Milligan had jointly purchased a house to run as a business, and both accepted that it had been bought to own jointly. Only Tinsley was registered as the owner, however, so that Milligan (with Tinsley's knowledge) could claim state benefits. The House of Lords decided that Milligan could claim an equitable interest, since it was the contribution to the purchase price (a lawful act) which she was relying on, not the