Gilchrist v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 11 Apr 2014

INHERITANCE TAX – discretionary settlement – 10-year charge – whether the proceeds of sale of scrip dividend shares to which s.249 ICTA 1988 applies are deemed to be income not only for the purposes of ICTA 1988 but also for the purposes of trust law generally and for the purposes of Inheritance Tax

[2014] UKUT 169 (TCC), [2015] CH 183, [2014] WTLR 1209, [2014] WLR(D) 205, [2015] 2 WLR 1, [2014] STC 1713, [2014] BTC 513, [2014] STI 1875, [2014] 4 All ER 943
Bailii
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525881

Buzzoni and Others v Revenue and Customs, Re The Estate of Lia Kamhi (Deceased)): CA 19 Dec 2013

Moses, Black, Gloster LJJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1684
Bailii
Finance Act 1986
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTxBuzzoni and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 21-Apr-2011
FTTTx INHERITANCE TAX – grant of future underlease – covenants reserved – whether donor excluded or virtually excluded – appeal dismissed . .
Appeal fromBuzzoni and Others v HM Revenue and Customs – FTC/57-59/2011 UTTC 19-Oct-2012
UTTC Whether s. 102(1)(b) of the Finance Act 1986 (gift with reservation) applies to a gift of a reversionary underlease containing covenants from the donee mirroring covenants in the donor’s head lease. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Inheritance Tax

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519316

Price v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 Oct 2010

INHERITANCE TAX – Related property provisions – what is the proper construction of the words ‘the appropriate portion of the value of the aggregate of that and any related property’ in section 161(1) IHTA? – Appellant contending that the concept of the aggregate of two properties cannot connote their transformation into a different description of property – HMRC contending that the aggregation required the deceased’s undivided half share in a property to be taken together with her spouse’s identical undivided half share, with the result that the freehold of the property with vacant possession was the subject of the required valuation – section 161(3) IHTA which provides the meaning of ‘the appropriate portion’ also construed – held following IRC v Gray that ‘the value of the aggregate’ was to be taken to be the price which the two items of property would fetch in the open market if offered for sale at the same time – held further that no deduction from the value was to be made on account of the notional costs of selling or the liabilities charged on the property- HMRC’s Determination upheld in principle – further valuation points to be referred to the Upper Tribunal pursuant to section 222(4A) IHTA if not agreed

[2010] UKFTT 474 (TC), [2011] WTLR 161, [2011] STI 310, [2011] SFTD 52
Bailii
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.426639

HM Revenue and Customs v Hanson (As Trustee of The William Hanson 1957 Settlement): UTTC 17 May 2013

UTTTC INHERITANCE TAX – deemed transfer on death – deceased’s estate included a farmhouse – whether the farmhouse was agricultural property within section 115(2) Inheritance Tax Act 1984 – nature of the nexus required between a farmhouse and the agricultural land or pasture etc. in the definition – whether such nexus was occupation and ownership or only occupation -held, the nexus is only occupation – Special Commissioner’s decision in Rosser v IRC [2003] STC (SCD) 311 not followed – appeal from Tax Chamber dismissed.

Warren J
[2013] UKUT 224 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.510298

Scheunemann v Finanzamt Bremerhaven: ECJ 19 Jul 2012

ECJ Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – Direct taxation – Inheritance tax – Conditions for the calculation of the tax – Acquisition through inheritance of a shareholding, as sole shareholder, in a capital company established in a third country – National legislation excluding shareholdings in such companies from tax advantages

Cunha Rodrigues P
[2012] EUECJ C-31/11 – O
Bailii
European
Citing:
OpinionScheunemann v Finanzamt Bremerhaven ECJ 20-Mar-2012
ECJ Fundamental freedoms – Delimitation – Freedom of establishment – Article 49 TFEU – Free movement of capital – Article 63 TFEU – Inheritance tax – Acquisition by inheritance of a shareholding, forming part of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Inheritance Tax, Company

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.466287

Fryer and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Feb 2010

FTTTx Inheritance Tax – pension policy – potential death benefits held in discretionary trust – rights to pension benefits retained by policyholder – policyholder terminally ill – whether omission to opt to take retirement benefits diminished policyholder’s estate and increased that of discretionary trust – yes – valuation of diminution in estate – appeal dismissed subject to variation of determination and adjustment of value of diminution

[2010] UKFTT 87 (TC), [2010] SFTD 632, [2010] WTLR 815
Bailii
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.408924

Commission v Germany: ECJ 4 Sep 2014

comm_germanyECJ1409

ECJ (Judgment) Failure to fulfill obligations – Article 63 TFEU – Free movement of capital – Tax on gifts and estates – National legislation providing for a higher deduction if the deceased at his death, the donor or recipient residing in the territory of the Member State – Purpose of infringement proceedings – Restriction – Justification

Ilesic P
C-211/13, [2014] EUECJ C-211/13
Bailii

European, Inheritance Tax

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.536447

Revenue and Customs v Evans: FTTTx 25 Jun 2014

FTTTx INHERITANCE TAX – failure to lodge inheritance tax return on death of life tenant – trustee’s failure to respond to all correspondence from 13 August 2010 including appearing at the hearing – case heard in appellant’s absence- penalty andpound;100 for initial failure, a further penalty of andpound;100 for the continuing failure and a penalty of andpound;60 per day incurred from the date of the hearing until the return is lodged.

David Porter TJ
[2014] UKFTT 628 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.533708

McArthur, Executors of v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 9 Jul 2008

Share Valuations for IHT

SCIT Inheritance Tax; share valuation; convertible unsecured loan stock; family companies; whether option to take shares valid or in doubt; whether options prescribed; effect on valuation of conversion rights; valuation assumptions; percentage deduction for minority and majority shareholdings; Inheritance Tax Act 1984 sections 4, 160, and 168(1); Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 Schedule 2 paragraph 2(2)(b).

[2008] UKSPC SPC00700
Bailii
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.273107

Atkinson and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Mar 2010

FTTTx Inheritance Tax – Exempt transfers and relief – Agricultural property relief – Farm owned by deceased and let to family farming partnership – Deceased as partner lived in bungalow on the farm until ill-health required him to move to care home – Deceased made occasional visits to bungalow and his possessions remained in it until his death – Whether throughout the seven year period ending with his death the bungalow was occupied by the deceased or another for the purposes of agriculture – Yes – IHTA 1984 section 117(b).

[2010] UKFTT 108 (TC)
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 117(b)
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.408947

Smith and Others v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: SCIT 18 Mar 2009

SCIT Inheritance tax – Death – liability for tax – building society account not notified prior to issue of Clearance – account part of deceased’s estate for inheritance tax purposes – estate distributed by executors before they realised that account part of taxable estate – nature of asset – whether settled property – persons liable for tax attributable to property in account – persons liable for tax attributable to other assets – Inheritance Tax Act 1984 sections 4,5,43(3),200,204 and 211

Powell J
[2009] UKVAT SPC00742, [2009] WTLR 691, [2009] STC (SCD) 386, [2009] STI 1102
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.373756

Verdegaal, The Executors of The Estate of v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Sep 2014

FTTTx INCOME TAX – penalties and surcharges for late payment – penalties for late filing – interaction with inheritance tax IHT200 form – outside the time limit to amend – provisional returns not filed – whether actions of advisers provided reasonable excuse – no – whether reliance on advisers provided reasonable excuse – no – whether special circumstances – no – appeals dismissed and penalties upheld

[2014] UKFTT 878 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Inheritance Tax

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.536516

Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach eV v Etat belge (Taxation): ECJ 10 Feb 2011

ECJ Direct taxation – Free movement of capital – Inheritance tax – Legacies in favour of non-profit-making bodies – Refusal to apply a reduced rate where those bodies have their centre of operations in a Member State other than that in which the deceased had actually lived or worked – Restriction – Justification.

C-25/10, [2011] EUECJ C-25/10
Bailii
European

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.430215

Lau v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: SCIT 18 Mar 2009

lau_hmrcSCIT

SCIT INHERITANCE TAX – DISCLAIMER OF BENEFIT – The Appellant was joint executor and residuary beneficiary of her late husband’s estate – The Appellant paid andpound;1 million to her son who had renounced a legacy of andpound;665,000 under the Will of his step father – The Appellant contended that the payment of andpound;1 million was unconnected with her son’s renunciation – the payment was made in fulfilment of an earlier promise to fund her son’s business ventures – evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the renunciation was made in return for payment of the andpound;1 million – renunciation no effect made for consideration in monies – Appeal dismissed – section 142(3) Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

Michael Tildesley
[2009] UKVAT SPC00740
Bailii

Inheritance Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.373755

Burden and Burden v The United Kingdom: ECHR 12 Dec 2006

Sisters,Together always not Discriminated Against

(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives and owned property jointly. They complained that the Inheritance Tax regime treated them worse than it would a married couple, and was discriminatory.
Held: Whilst some protections had been extended to give relief to same sex partnerships, it still did not assist those in the claimants’ position. Given that there was no domestic remedy available, the applicants had been correct to apply direct to the court, and no time limit applied. However, even assuming that the applicants could be compared to a couple in a married or same sex relationship, the difference in treatment was not inconsistent with article 14.
The difference of treatment for the purposes of the grant of social security benefits, between an unmarried applicant who had a long-term relationship with the deceased, and a widow in the same situation, was justified, marriage remaining an institution that was widely accepted as conferring a particular status on those who entered it, and the respondent was not to be criticised for pursuing taxation policies designed to promote marriage; nor for making available those advantages to committed homosexual couples. The difference in treatment was justified.

J. Casadevall, President and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, G. Bonello, K. Traja, S Pavlovschi, L. Garlicki and L. Mijovic, Section Registrar T.L. Early
13378/05, [2006] ECHR 1064, (2007) 44 EHRR 51, 21 BHRC 640, [2007] STI 106, [2008] STI 1279, [2007] 1 FCR 69, [2007] STC 252, 9 ITL Rep 535, [2007] WTLR 607
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights, Inheritance Tax Act 1984 18(1)
Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedIn re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
See AlsoBurden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2008
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives. They complained of discrimination in their treatment under the Inheritance Tax system as opposed to the treatment of a same sex couple living in a sexual . .
CitedCarson and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 4-Nov-2008
(Grand Chamber) Pensioners who had moved abroad complained that they had been excluded from the index-linked uprating of pensions given to pensioners living in England.
Held: This was not an infringement of their human rights. Differences in . .
See AlsoBurden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Sep-2007
The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives. They complained of discrimination in their treatment under the Inheritance Tax system as opposed to the treatment of a same sex couple living in a sexual relationship. . .
CitedEweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .
CitedThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Mar-2014
latterdayECHR0314
The claimant said that it had been wrongfully deprived of relief from business rates for its two temples. It asserted that it was a religion, and that the treatment was discriminatory. The government said that the refusal was on the basis alone that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Inheritance Tax, Discrimination, Family

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.248125

Revenue and Customs v Representatives of Staveley (Deceased): UTTC 10 Jan 2017

Failure to take pension benefits – Inheritance Tax

UTTC INHERITANCE TAX – whether transfer of funds to a personal pension plan was a transfer of value – Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s 3(1) and s 10 – whether deceased’s omission to take lifetime pension benefits was to be treated as a disposition and transfer of value – s 3(3) IHTA

Barling J
[2017] UKUT 4 (TCC), [2017] STC 574, [2017] BTC 504
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 3(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromParry and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 7-May-2014
INHERITANCE TAX – transfer of funds to personal pension plan while diagnosed with terminal cancer – whether transfer of value – omission to take lifetime benefits – whether disposition and transfer of value – appeal allowed in part . .

Cited by:
Appeal from (UTTC)Revenue and Customs v Parry and Others CA 16-Oct-2018
Pension Accumulation was taxable
The court was asked whether the pension scheme transfer by the late Mrs R F Staveley, and her omission to take income benefits which were then payable, constituted, or are to be treated as constituting, for the purposes of Inheritance Tax 1984 . .
At UTTCRevenue and Customs v Parry and Others SC 19-Aug-2020
Whether the pension scheme transfer by the late Mrs Staveley, and her omission to take income benefits which were then payable, constituted, or are to be treated as constituting, for the purposes of the Inheritance Tax 1984 a ‘disposition’ which is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.577810

Wright and Another v Gater and Others: ChD 7 Nov 2011

The beneficiary, a child was to inherit estates of his grandparents and parents, all of which were intestate. An application was made to vary the provisions in order to reduce the liability to Inheritance Tax.
Held: A deferment of vesting might constitute a ‘benefit’ for the purposes of the 1958 Act, but it was an issue to be decided from case to case. In this case the original proposal would cross the line between variation and resettlement, and the child at three could not now be predicted to be in need of protection at the age of majority. However a variety of the proposal was acceptable and was approved.

Norris J
[2011] EWHC 2881 (Ch), 14 ITELR 603, [2012] 1 WLR 802, [2012] STC 255, [2011] STI 3431, [2012] WTLR 549
Bailii
Administration of Estates Act 1925 47, Trustee Act 1925 31 32
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedIn Re Bernstein ChD 2008
The testator had left andpound;100,000 legacies to his grandchildren at 25. In order to achieve a tax saving. The court was asked to approve an arrangement under which the individual legacies were replaced by interest in a fund in which the widow . .
CitedRe Cohen’s Will Trusts ChD 1959
An application was made for the variation of trust provisions on behalf of a child beneficiary.
Held: Where the outcome of the arrangement cannot be predicted with certainty then the Court should be prepared to take on behalf of a minor, a . .
CitedIn Re Druce’s Settlement Trusts ChD 1962
Russell J discussed the difficulties of trustees when making an application on behalf of a beneficiary of the trust: ‘The application was made not by a beneficiary but by the trustees. This is a disadvantage, particularly in a case such as the . .
CitedIn re T’s Settlement Trusts ChD 1964
Wilberforce J was asked to approve a variation of a trust in favour of a child under the 1958 Act, to restrict her from getting her full entitlement on her attaining the age of 21 because she was said to be ‘alarmingly immature and irresponsible as . .
CitedRe Van Gruisen’s Will Trusts ChD 1964
The court considered the extent of its discretion to vary the provisions of a trust.
Held: The Court should ask whether, if the persons on whose behalf consent is to be given were themselves competent and reasonable, the bargain is one that . .
CitedRe Weston’s Settlement Trusts CA 1968
The settlor applied for the approval of an arrangement for the export of his trust to Jersey, where he had gone to live. The court considered its powers under the 1968 Act.
Held: The court should not consider merely the financial benefit to . .
Citedin Re Wallace’s Settlements ChD 1968
A judge considering an application to vary trusts should approach it with ‘a fair cautious and enquiring mind’. . .
CitedIn Re Remnant ChD 1970
Approval was sought of a proposed deed varying trusts created in the will.
Held: The testator’s intention would be defeated by the proposed arrangement which involved the deletion of the forfeiture provision dependant upon the beneficiary’s . .
CitedIn Re Holt’s Settlement ChD 1969
An application was made to vary the terms of a trust in favour of children.
Held: The court was ready to receive evidence from a mother whose children were due to become entitled to funds at the age of 21 that she believed it most important . .
CitedIn Re Irving 1975
The (Canadian) court considered an application to vary a trust on behalf of a child, and asked itself: ‘Would a prudent adult, motivated by intelligent self-interest, and after sustained consideration of the proposed trusts and powers and the . .
CitedWeston v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 29-Nov-2000
The taxpayer owned land upon which he ran a caravan park. Income was generated by pitch fees, and from commissions taken from the sales of caravans from one pitch owner to the next. The Commissioners asserted that the income was to be treated as . .
CitedRidgwell and others v Ridgwell and others; In Re RGST Settlement Trusts ChD 14-Nov-2007
Funds were held upon trust for X with the remainder (in default of exercise of the power of appointment) to his three children aged 7,5 and 2. It was beneficial for tax purposes to insert a life interest in favour of X’s surviving spouse (thereby . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Inheritance Tax, Trusts

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.448121

Scheunemann v Finanzamt Bremerhaven: ECJ 20 Mar 2012

ECJ Fundamental freedoms – Delimitation – Freedom of establishment – Article 49 TFEU – Free movement of capital – Article 63 TFEU – Inheritance tax – Acquisition by inheritance of a shareholding, forming part of the private assets of the testator, as sole shareholder in a capital company with its registered office in a third country – Provision of national law providing tax advantages for companies having their registered office or principal place of business in the national territory

A-G Trstenjak
C-31/11, [2012] EUECJ C-31/11
Bailii
Cited by:
OpinionScheunemann v Finanzamt Bremerhaven ECJ 19-Jul-2012
ECJ Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – Direct taxation – Inheritance tax – Conditions for the calculation of the tax – Acquisition through inheritance of a shareholding, as sole shareholder, in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Inheritance Tax, Company

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.463192

Barclays Bank Trust Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs: CA 14 Jul 2011

Parents had each left a share of their estate to the bank on trusts for their disabled son. The revenue said that the gifts were caught by and taxable by virtue of sections 5, 49 and 89 of the 1984 Act, the residuary estates of both parents forming part of the son’s estate because section 89 required the son to be treated as if he had had an interest in possession in each of them.
Held: The detailed structure of the clauses created an interest for the son, and income accumulated could only be applied for the son and not, by virtue of the limitations and the circumstances, in favour of his children. Also, ‘the time at which the conditions for the application of section 89 must be satisfied is ‘when the property was transferred into the settlement’. At that time the trusts on which the property was held did ‘secure’ that not less than half the settled property applied during his life was applied for the benefit of Edwin. The fact that at some later time Edwin disposed of his interest so that thereafter property could not be applied for his benefit is nothing to the point.’ As such the bank’s appeal failed.

Sir Andrew Morritt Ch,
[2011] EWCA Civ 810, [2011] NPC 75, [2011] WTLR 1489, [2011] BTC 375
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 89, Trustee Act 1925 32
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRe Halstead’s Will Trusts ChD 1937
The term ‘benefit’ in a trust instrument is to be construed widely. To exercise a power of advancement by settling on an object of the power and his wife and children, property in which he has otherwise only a life interest was an ‘application’. . .
CitedIn Re Pilkington’s Will Trusts; Pilkington v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 8-Oct-1962
The trustees proposed establishing a new trust in respect of the share of an estate to which an infant beneficiary had a contingent entitlement. A portion of the trust fund would be allocated to the new trust.
Held: This was a lawful exercise . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax, Trusts

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.441817

Sussman v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 29 Jul 2016

Whether gift with reservation

FTTTx Inheritance tax – appeal against a notice of determination – permission given to appeal out of time – appeal heard immediately after out of time application – had Deceased reduced the value of her estate some years before she died – if so was there a gift with reservation – no reduction in value of estate – gift with reservation not considered – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 523 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.567978

HM Revenue and Customs v Atkinson and Another: UTTC 31 Oct 2011

UTTC Inheritance Tax – Exempt transfers and relief – Agricultural property relief – Farm owned by deceased and let to family farming partnership – Deceased as partner lived in bungalow on the farm until ill-health required him to move to care home – Deceased made occasional visits to bungalow and his possessions remained in it until his death – Whether throughout the seven year period ending with his death the bungalow was occupied by the deceased or another for the purposes of agriculture – No – IHTA 1984 section 117(b). Appeal allowed

[2011] UKUT B26 (TCC)
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 117(b)
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.449958

HM Revenue and Customs v A M Brander As Exec of The Will of The Late Fourth Earl of Balfour: UTTC 16 Aug 2010

UTTC Inheritance tax – Exempt transfers and relief – Business property relief Replacement property – Deceased having liferent interest in family estate – Deceased declared to be fee simple proprietor of the estate – Deceased entering into partnership with intended successor – Whether deceased’s interest in partnership, which subsisted immediately before his death, replaced previous business carried on by deceased – Whether business excluded from business property relief as consisting mainly of making or holding investments – Inheritance Tax 1984, ss 105(1), (3), 107.

Lord Hodge, Sir Stephen Oliver QC
[2010] UKUT 300 (TCC), [2010] BTC 1656, [2010] STI 2427, [2010] WTLR 1545, [2010] STC 2666
Bailii
Inheritance Tax 1984 105(1) 105(3) 107
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedTootal Broadhurst Lee Co Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1949
Fees received for the use of the taxpayer’s productive plant were not income from investment.
Lord Norman defined the meaning of ‘investment’, saying: ‘The meaning of ‘investment’ is its meaning, not in the vernacular of the man in the street, . .
CitedMcCall and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CANI 25-Feb-2009
The deceased had inherited grass land from her husband. It had planning permission for development. The personal representatives appealed against a finding that relief was not available as a relevant business property. . .
CitedEdwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.428164

Mckelvey v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 19 Jun 2008

Inter vivos gift as Provision for Care

INHERITANCE TAX – gift inter vivos – whether reasonable provision for care or maintenance of transferee – IHTA 1988 ss 3A, 11 – two houses given by terminally ill spinster to elderly widowed mother – on facts bulk of value found to be reasonable provision and exempt transfer – appeal allowed in part.

[2008] UKSPC SPC00694
Bailii
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.273104

Cairns v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Mar 2009

FTTTx (Special Commissioners) Inheritance Tax; administration and collection; executor as personal representative delivering account of heritable property of deceased; whether account incorrect; whether incorrect account fraudulently or negligently delivered; failure to declare that value of property was a provisional estimate; penalty; powers of the Tribunal; mitigation; Inheritance Tax Act 1984 sections 216, 247, 249 and 253

Gordon Reid QC
[2009] STC (SCD) 479, [2009] UKFTT 67 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.373583

Burden and Burden v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Sep 2007

The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives. They complained of discrimination in their treatment under the Inheritance Tax system as opposed to the treatment of a same sex couple living in a sexual relationship.

[2007] ECHR 723, 13378/05
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
See AlsoBurden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Dec-2006
Sisters,Together always not Discriminated Against
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives and owned property jointly. They complained that the Inheritance Tax regime treated them worse than it would a married couple, and was discriminatory.
Held: . .

Cited by:
See AlsoBurden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2008
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives. They complained of discrimination in their treatment under the Inheritance Tax system as opposed to the treatment of a same sex couple living in a sexual . .
CitedAL (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Rudi v Same HL 25-Jun-2008
Each claimant had arrived here with their parents, and stayed for several years. They were excluded from the scheme allowing families who had been here more than three years to stay here, because they had attained 18 and were no longer dependant on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Discrimination, Inheritance Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.270744

Pitt and Another v Holt and Others: ChD 18 Jan 2010

The deceased had created a settlement in favour of his wife. He suffered serious injury and placed the damages in trust, but in a form which created an unnecessary liability to Inheritance Tax on his death. The wife’s mental health act receiver now sought the unravelling of the trust based on either Hastings Bass or mistake.
Held: The rule in Hastings-Bass could be used by others than only trustees. Robert Englehart QC said: ‘A mere failure by someone to take a material consideration into account in the conduct of his own affairs will not justify setting aside for mistake. It was said in argument before me that the law allows you to be as foolish as you like with your own property. On the other hand, there certainly is jurisdiction, irrespective of any trust or fiduciary element, to set aside a voluntary transaction where there has been an operative mistake. Nevertheless, for the rule in Hastings-Bass to apply there is no need to identify a mistake as such, as opposed to a failure to take a relevant consideration into account.’ though there was no real mistake, only a failure to address the effect of the arrangement fully, the rule in Hastings-Bass could be applied and the trust varied.

Robert Englehart, QC
[2010] EWHC 236 (Ch)
Bailii, Times
Mental Health Act 1983
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSieff v Fox ChD 23-Jun-2005
The advisers to trustees wrongly advised the trustees about the tax consequences of exercising a power of appointment in a certain way. As a result a large unforeseen Capital Gains Tax liability arose. The trustees sought to set aside the . .
CitedRe Hastings-Bass; Hastings v Inland Revenue CA 14-Mar-1974
Trustees of a settlement had exercised their power of advancement under the section, in order to save estate duty by transferring investments to be held on the trusts of a later settlement. However the actual effect of the advancement was that the . .
CitedMettoy Pension Trustees v Evans ChD 1990
Where a trustee acts under a discretion given to him by the terms of the trust the court will interfere with his action if it is clear that he would not have so acted as he did had he not failed to take into account considerations which he ought to . .
CitedByng v London Life Association CA 1990
The venue selected for a meeting of the members of a company was too small to accommodate all the members who attended, and so the chairman adjourned the meeting to an alternative venue.
Held: The decision by the chairman was set aside on the . .
CitedGibbon v Mitchell ChD 1990
G executed a deed surrendering his life interest in a trust fund in order to vest the property in his two children: the deed did not have that effect because of two errors (one of which was ignoring the fact that his life interest was subject to . .
CitedHunter v Senate Support Services Ltd and others ChD 2005
The court set aside a forfeiture of shares for non-payment of a call. The decisions of the directors to forfeit the shares and to transfer the forfeited shares to the group holding company were flawed, though not improperly motivated, because the . .
CitedEdge and others v Pensions Ombudsman and Another CA 29-Jul-1999
The Pensions Ombudsman was wrong to set aside the decision of pensions trustees where that decision was properly made within the scope of a discretion given to the Trustees. He should not carry out an investigation where no particular benefit could . .
CitedEquitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman HL 20-Jul-2000
The directors of the Society had calculated the final bonuses to be allocated to policyholders in a manner which was found to be contrary to the terms of the policy. The language of the article conferring the power to declare such bonuses contained . .
CitedAnker-Petersen v Christensen ChD 2002
Where a mistake is made as to the effect of an appointment under a trust it may be possible to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to rescind the appointment. Davis J considered Millett J’s distinction between ‘effect’ and ‘consequences’: ‘An example in . .
CitedOgden and Another v Trustees of the RHS Griffiths 2003 Settlement and others; In Re Griffiths deceased ChD 25-Jan-2008
A life-time transfer which had been made under a mistake as to the donor’s chances of surviving long enough for the transfer to be exempt from Inheritance Tax was set aside. Unbeknown to the donor, he had lung cancer at the time.
Held: Lewison . .
CitedWolff v Wolff ChD 6-Sep-2004
The court considered its ability to redraw a document where its legal effect was misunderstood. . .
CitedAbacus Trust Company (Isle of Man) Colyb Limited v Barr, Barr, and Barr ChD 6-Feb-2003
The court considered the Rule in Hastings-Bass, and specifically (1) whether the trustee’s decision is open to challenge when the failure to take a consideration into account is not attributable to a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the . .
CitedOgilvie v Littleboy CA 1897
Lindley LJ discussed the variation of a gift for mistake: ‘Gifts cannot be revoked, nor can deeds be set aside, simply because the donors wish they had not made them and would like to have back the property given. Where there is no fraud, no undue . .
CitedBurrell and Sharman v Burrell, Shore, Tyrrell, etc ChD 23-Feb-2005
burrell_burrellChD05
Shares were appointed by trustees in the mistaken belief that they attracted business property relief from Inheritance tax. They sought to set aside the appointment.
Held: Mann J applied the rule in Stannard v Fisons Pensions Trust and . .

Cited by:
CitedFutter and Another v Futter and Others ChD 11-Mar-2010
Various family settlements had been created. The trustees wished to use the rule in Hastings-Bass to re-open decisions they had made after receiving incorrect advice.
Held: The deeds were set aside as void. The Rule in Hastings-Bass derives . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Wills and Probate, Inheritance Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.396742

Burrell and Sharman v Burrell, Shore, Tyrrell, etc: ChD 23 Feb 2005

burrell_burrellChD05

Shares were appointed by trustees in the mistaken belief that they attracted business property relief from Inheritance tax. They sought to set aside the appointment.
Held: Mann J applied the rule in Stannard v Fisons Pensions Trust and declared invalid that part of the appointment which dealt with the shares.

The Honourable Mr Justice Mann
[2005] EWHC 245 (Ch), (2004-05) 7 ITELR 622, [2005] Pens LR 289, [2005] WTLR 313, [2005] BTC 8011, [2005] STC 569
Bailii
Citing:
CitedRe Hastings-Bass; Hastings v Inland Revenue CA 14-Mar-1974
Trustees of a settlement had exercised their power of advancement under the section, in order to save estate duty by transferring investments to be held on the trusts of a later settlement. However the actual effect of the advancement was that the . .
CitedStannard v Fisons Pension Trust Limited CA 1991
Fisons had sold their fertiliser division to Norsk Hydro. Acting on advice of actuaries and thinking that the fund was in deficit, the trustees made a transfer to a new fund to provide for pensions of transferring employees in accordance with a . .
AppliedAbacus Trust Company (Isle of Man) Ltd and Another v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children ChD 17-Jul-2001
abacus_nspccChD01
The claimants were beneficiaries, trustee and protector of a trust fund. In order to mitigate Capital Gains Tax liability they sought advice, and, following that advice, entered into a deed of gift in favour of the respondent charity. The deed . .

Cited by:
CitedPitt and Another v Holt and Others ChD 18-Jan-2010
The deceased had created a settlement in favour of his wife. He suffered serious injury and placed the damages in trust, but in a form which created an unnecessary liability to Inheritance Tax on his death. The wife’s mental health act receiver now . .
CitedFutter and Another v Futter and Others ChD 11-Mar-2010
Various family settlements had been created. The trustees wished to use the rule in Hastings-Bass to re-open decisions they had made after receiving incorrect advice.
Held: The deeds were set aside as void. The Rule in Hastings-Bass derives . .
CitedPitt and Another v Holt and Another ChD 18-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to unravel a settlement she had made as receiver for her late husband, saying that it had been made without consideration of its Inheritance Tax implications. The Revenue said that there was no operative mistake so as to allow . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Inheritance Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.223296

Revenue and Customs v Parry and Others: CA 16 Oct 2018

Pension Accumulation was taxable

The court was asked whether the pension scheme transfer by the late Mrs R F Staveley, and her omission to take income benefits which were then payable, constituted, or are to be treated as constituting, for the purposes of Inheritance Tax 1984 (‘IHTA’) a ‘disposition’ which is a ‘transfer of value’ in favour of her sons, who were to be the beneficiaries of the death benefit. The relevant statutory provisions are section 3(1) IHTA, read with section 10(1), and section 3(3) IHTA. At the time of the transfer, Mrs Staveley was in the late stages of a terminal illness, from which she died six weeks later. The right to receive the death benefit has been assessed as at the date of the transfer as worth a considerable proportion of Mrs Staveley’s pension funds.
Held: It did. The failure to take pension benefits in due course increased the estates of the sons.

Lady Arden JSC, Newey LJ, Birss J
[2018] EWCA Civ 2266, [2018] WLR(D) 638, [2019] WTLR 45, [2018] STC 2324, [2019] 1 WLR 2397, [2019] 2 All ER 288
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTxParry and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 7-May-2014
INHERITANCE TAX – transfer of funds to personal pension plan while diagnosed with terminal cancer – whether transfer of value – omission to take lifetime benefits – whether disposition and transfer of value – appeal allowed in part . .
Appeal from (UTTC)Revenue and Customs v Representatives of Staveley (Deceased) UTTC 10-Jan-2017
Failure to take pension benefits – Inheritance Tax
UTTC INHERITANCE TAX – whether transfer of funds to a personal pension plan was a transfer of value – Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s 3(1) and s 10 – whether deceased’s omission to take lifetime pension benefits was . .

Cited by:
Appeal from (CA)Revenue and Customs v Parry and Others SC 19-Aug-2020
Whether the pension scheme transfer by the late Mrs Staveley, and her omission to take income benefits which were then payable, constituted, or are to be treated as constituting, for the purposes of the Inheritance Tax 1984 a ‘disposition’ which is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.625964

Davies and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Jun 2009

FTTTx Inheritance tax – death – estate passing on death – was there settled property derived from deceased’s husband who died in 1969 and estate duty was paid – questions of secret trust and mutual wills – transitional relief from inheritance tax – Inheritance Tax Act 1984 Schedule 6, paragraph 2

Powell J
[2009] UKFTT 138 (TC), [2009] STI 2095, [2009] WTLR 1151
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 Schedule 6, paragraph 2
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.373676

Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs: CA 16 Sep 2016

Executors appealed against a decision that a residual gift in a will was not charitable and that it was therefore subject to Inheritance Tax arguing that the section if construed in this way was an unlawful restriction on the free movement of captal. The revenue contended that the gift by a Jersey resident was to a Jersey Trust which was not solely charitable not being subject only to UK law.
Held: The authority as to the charity point was unassailable and the trustees’ appeal om that point failed. However, the court could not reconcile the question as to freedom of movement under European law, and it asked the parties to consider a question for referral to the European Court o Justice.

Moore-Bick VP CA, Tomlinson, Kitchin LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 938, [2016] WLR(D) 496
Bailii, WLRD
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 23, TFEU 63, Income Tax Act 2007 989
England and Wales
Citing:
At ChDRoutier and Another v Revenue and Customs ChD 18-Sep-2014
Executors appealed against rejection of their claim that a gift in the will qualified for relief against Inheritance Tax as being a charitable gift. The Trusts concerned assets in Jersey.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The expression ‘held on trust . .
CitedCamille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1954
The Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to make an order with respect to a company registered in New York for objects which were charitable according to the laws of England.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal against a finding that the . .
CitedCamille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1956
The company was a foreign corporation constituted according to the laws of the state of New York for objects which were exclusively charitable according to the law of the United Kingdom.
Held: The term ‘charity’ does not include an institution . .
CitedBarras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co HL 17-Mar-1933
The court looked at the inference that a statute’s draughtsman could be assumed when using a phrase to rely on a known interpretation of that phrase.
Viscount Buckmaster said: ‘It has long been a well established principle to be applied in the . .
CitedRoque v The Lieutenant Governor of Jersey ECJ 16-Jul-1998
(Judgment) Free movement of persons – Act of Accession 1972 – Protocol No 3 concerning the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man – Jersey . .
CitedHM Inspector of Taxes v Dextra Accessories Ltd HL 7-Jul-2005
The taxpayer companies had paid funds into a trust for employees. They sought to set off the payments against their liability to corporation tax. The revenue argued that they were deductible only in the year in which they were paid to the employees. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax, Charity, European

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.569895

Burden and Burden v The United Kingdom: ECHR 29 Apr 2008

(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives. They complained of discrimination in their treatment under the Inheritance Tax system as opposed to the treatment of a same sex couple living in a sexual relationship.
Held: (majority) They were not in an analogous situation to civil partners because marriage and civil partnership were different forms of relationship from siblingship.
Judge Bjorgvinsson said that the comparison should focus, not on the differences in legal framework, but on the differences in the nature of the relationship as such.
‘The Court recalls that, in order to be able to lodge a petition in pursuance of Art. 34, a person, non-governmental association or group of individuals must be able to claim ‘to be the victim of a violation . . of the rights set forth in the Convention.’ In order to claim to be a victim of a violation, a person must be directly affected by the impugned measure … It is, however, open to a person to contend that a law violates his rights, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if he is required either to modify his conduct or risk being prosecuted or if he is a member of a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation. Thus in (Marckz v Belgium) 1979-80 2 EHRR 330 the applicants, a single mother and her five-year-old ‘illegitimate’ daughter, were found to be directly affected by, and thus victims of, legislation which would, inter alia limit the child’s right to inherit property from her mother upon the mother’s eventual death, since the law automatically applied to all children born out of wedlock.’

Bjorgvinsson J
13378/05, [2008] ECHR 357, Times 07-May-2008, [2008] 18 EG 126, (2008) 47 EHRR 38, [2008] WTLR 1129, [2008] 2 FCR 244, 10 ITL Rep 772, [2008] STC 1305, 24 BHRC 709, [2008] 18 EG 126, [2008] 2 FLR 787, [2008] BTC 8099, [2008] Fam Law 628,
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Citing:
See AlsoBurden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Sep-2007
The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives. They complained of discrimination in their treatment under the Inheritance Tax system as opposed to the treatment of a same sex couple living in a sexual relationship. . .
See AlsoBurden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Dec-2006
Sisters,Together always not Discriminated Against
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives and owned property jointly. They complained that the Inheritance Tax regime treated them worse than it would a married couple, and was discriminatory.
Held: . .
CitedBurden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2008
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives. They complained of discrimination in their treatment under the Inheritance Tax system as opposed to the treatment of a same sex couple living in a sexual . .

Cited by:
CitedBurden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2008
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives. They complained of discrimination in their treatment under the Inheritance Tax system as opposed to the treatment of a same sex couple living in a sexual . .
CitedRodriguez v Minister of Housing of The Government and Another PC 14-Dec-2009
Gibraltar – The claimant challenged a public housing allocation policy which gave preference to married couples and parents of children, excluding same sex and infertile couples.
Held: The aim of discouraging homosexual relationships is . .
CitedAxa General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
axaReSCS201
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
CitedRecovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales) SC 9-Feb-2015
The court was asked whether the Bill was within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. The Bill purported to impose NHS charges on those from whom asbestos related damages were recovered.
Held: The Bill fell outside the legislative competence . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Inheritance Tax, Discrimination

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.270743

Watkins and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Nov 2011

FTTTx Inheritance tax – discounted gift trust – valuation of retained interest to income stream – s160 IHTA 1984 – burden of proof – adequacy of comparables – appeal dismissed

Malachy Cornwell-Kelly J
[2011] UKFTT 745 (TC)
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 160
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSalvesen’s Trustees v Inland Revenue Commissioners SCS 1930
The court considered the valuation of shares in a notional purchase. The company’s articles of association contained a provision that the company might at any time, by extraordinary resolution, resolve that any shareholder, other than a director or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.449684

Silber v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Nov 2012

FTTTx INHERITANCE TAX – whether amount paid by the deceased to a company owned by him was a loan or a gift – found on the evidence a loan – whether a payment made by legatees under a will to a third party in settlement of litigation concerning the validity of the will was in discharge of a liability of the deceased which was deductible in computing his estate for IHT purposes – held it was not – whether further charitable payments made by a legatee and personal representative of the deceased attracted an exemption from IHT in the computation of the IHT due on the death of the deceased – held no – appeal dismissed
[2012] UKFTT 700 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.466258

Chadda and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Nov 2014

FTTTx INHERITANCE TAX – nil rate band trust – whether joint tenancy of property severed – absence of signed Notice of Severance – draft Notice produced – whether evidence sufficient to show that original Notice served – weight of draft in context of other evidence – held, on totality of evidence, that written notice given – consideration of other methods of severance – held that evidence would have sufficed to show severance by other methods – appeals against determinations allowed
[2014] UKFTT 1061 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 October 2021; Ref: scu.540286

Vincent v Revenue and Customs (Inheritance Tax – Whether The Drafting In A Will Created An Interest In Possession): FTTTx 30 Oct 2019

INHERITANCE TAX – whether the drafting in a will created an interest in possession – yes – was the interest disclaimed – no
[2019] UKFTT 657 (TC)
Bailii
Administration of Justice Act 1982 21, Inheritance Tax Act 1984 43
England and Wales

Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.644055

Inze v Austria: ECHR 28 Oct 1987

Art 14 was engaged in respect of discrimination over future interests despite Marckx. The case turned on what singular provisions of Austrian inheritance law, whereby the illegitimate claimant had some, but incomplete, rights on his mother’s intestacy. The claim was not exclusively in respect of future rights, which the Court relied on in distinguishing Marckx.
(1987) 10 EHRR 394, 8695/79, [1987] ECHR 28
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 14
Human Rights
Citing:
DistinguishedMarckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina (SR) v Nottingham Magistrates’ Court Admn 19-Oct-2001
The applicant SR, aged 15, was remanded in custody to a Youth Offenders Institution pending sentence. Had he been a girl, he could not have been so remanded, since no similar provision was available for them. He complained that the law infringed his . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza CA 5-Nov-2002
The applicant sought to succeed to the tenancy of his deceased homosexual partner as his partner rather than as a member of his family.
Held: A court is bound by any decision within the normal hierachy of domestic authority as to the meaning . .
CitedGita Ram v Baskinder Ram,Solinder Ram, Monder Ram and Maurice William Russell CA 5-Nov-2004
A bankrupt had, before his bankruptcy disposed of his share in a house at an undervalue. His wife appealed an order that the share disposed of should vest entirely in the trustee in bankruptcy. Matrimonial proceedings had also been commenced.
CitedMcLaughlin, Re Judicial Review SC 30-Aug-2018
The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 September 2021; Ref: scu.164992

Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals v Sharp and Others: CA 21 Dec 2010

The Society appealed against an order construing a will. The will had made a gift of the maximum allowed before payment of inheritance tax, and then a gift of a house. The Society argued that the house gift should be deducted before calculation of the band.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court should not assume as a universal rule that a high street firm of solicitors will not take account of tax provisions in framing their advice. The natural readimng of the particular words used suggested the value of the house was first to be deducted.
Patten LJ said: ‘One thing on which the parties were in agreement was the approach of the Court to the construction of a will. As mentioned above, it was common ground before the judge that no extrinsic evidence was admissible. He had therefore to follow the guidance of Lord Simon LC in Perrin v Morgan [1943] AC 399 at 406 and to construe the language of the will so as to find: ‘the meaning which, having regard to the terms of the will, the testator intended. The question is not, of course, what the testator meant to do when he made his will, but what the written words he uses mean in the particular case – what are the ‘expressed intentions’ of the testator.’
We have therefore to examine the language of the will in its context taking into account the will as a whole; any relevant background circumstances which inform the meaning of the words used; and giving to those words their ordinary meaning unless they are obviously used in some special or technical sense
. . it is dangerous to approach the assessment of the Testator’s intentions other than through the language of his will. The first relevant consideration in my view is that the will was professionally drafted by a solicitor who has to be assumed to be competent. Although solicitors do obviously make mistakes, there needs to be something in the language of the document or its admissible background to justify that inference. More importantly, those factors must be such as to permit the Court to give the words actually used a meaning which is not strictly in accordance with the usual rules of grammar or vocabulary: see Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896.’
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR said: ‘ As Patten LJ impliedly acknowledges by his reference to Investors Compensation Scheme Limited v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896, the court’s approach to the interpretation of wills is, in practice, very similar to its approach to the interpretation of contracts. Of course, in the case of a contract, there are at least two parties involved in negotiating its terms, whereas a will is a unilateral document. However, it is clear from a number of cases that the approach to interpretation of unilateral documents, such as a notice or a patent, is effectively the same, as a matter of principle, as the court’s approach to the interpretation of a bilateral or multilateral document such as a contract: see Mannai Investments Ltd v Eagle Star Insurance Co plc [1997] AC 749 and Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC 9.
One obvious difference between a bilateral document such as a contract and a unilateral document such as a will, is that parties negotiating a contract may well be consciously content to include an obscurely drafted provision, on the basis that it represents an acceptable compromise, which enables overall agreement to be reached, whereas, save in a most exceptional case, which it is hard to conceive, a person making a will has no interest in obscurity.’
Patten, Black LJJ, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR
[2010] EWCA Civ 1474, [2011] 1 WLR 980, [2011] STI 253, [2011] STC 553, [2011] WTLR 311, (2011) 13 ITELR 701, [2011] PTSR 942
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 4(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCancer Research Campaign v Ernest Brown 1998
An executor does not usually owe a duty to advise a beneficiary in connection with the affairs of the beneficiary. Tax avoidance is not an idea that runs naturally or should be attributed to ordinary people or to legal executives in a small firm of . .
CitedInvestors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .

Cited by:
CitedRawstron and Another (Executrices of The Estate of Lucian Freud) v Freud ChD 30-Jul-2014
The court considered the construction of a point in the deceased’s will. The clause said: ‘I GIVE all the residue of my estate (out of which shall be paid my funeral and testamentary expenses and my debts) and any property over which I have a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.427374

Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals v Sharp and Others: ChD 19 Feb 2010

The parties disputed the effect of a term in the will leaving a share calculated according to the current rate of exemption from Inheritance Tax.
Held: ‘the purpose of clause 3 was to bequeath a legacy of the amount that was the maximum amount without inheritance tax being payable. The draftsman intended by the description to cover the possibility that the nil rate band might increase between the date of the will and the death. In other words it was intended that this legacy would be free of tax and would be an amount equal to the nil rate band at the time of the death of the Deceased.’ The claimant’s interpretation failed, and ‘ it is said that Trustees of charitable organisations are required to maximise the return for their charity but I really wonder whether the discharge of that duty required this action to be brought. In my view the RSPCA whatever the view as to the will ought really to have considered that the residuary legacy that I have determined it is entitled to was generous and ample provision out of this estate. The impact of the arguments on the size of the bequest to the Deceased’s brother was quite stark. This action has plainly caused distress to the Defendants and in my view ought not to have been brought.’
Peter Smith J
[2010] EWHC 268 (Ch)
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 4(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.401667

Revenue and Customs v Parry and Others: SC 19 Aug 2020

Whether the pension scheme transfer by the late Mrs Staveley, and her omission to take income benefits which were then payable, constituted, or are to be treated as constituting, for the purposes of the Inheritance Tax 1984 a ‘disposition’ which is a ‘transfer of value’ in favour of her sons, who were to be the beneficiaries of the death benefit.
Held: Taxpayer’s appeal failed.
Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales
[2020] UKSC 35
Bailii, Bailii Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
Inheritance Tax 1984 3(1) 3(3) 10(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTxParry and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 7-May-2014
INHERITANCE TAX – transfer of funds to personal pension plan while diagnosed with terminal cancer – whether transfer of value – omission to take lifetime benefits – whether disposition and transfer of value – appeal allowed in part . .
At UTTCRevenue and Customs v Representatives of Staveley (Deceased) UTTC 10-Jan-2017
Failure to take pension benefits – Inheritance Tax
UTTC INHERITANCE TAX – whether transfer of funds to a personal pension plan was a transfer of value – Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s 3(1) and s 10 – whether deceased’s omission to take lifetime pension benefits was . .
Appeal from (CA)Revenue and Customs v Parry and Others CA 16-Oct-2018
Pension Accumulation was taxable
The court was asked whether the pension scheme transfer by the late Mrs R F Staveley, and her omission to take income benefits which were then payable, constituted, or are to be treated as constituting, for the purposes of Inheritance Tax 1984 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.653118

Parry and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 May 2014

INHERITANCE TAX – transfer of funds to personal pension plan while diagnosed with terminal cancer – whether transfer of value – omission to take lifetime benefits – whether disposition and transfer of value – appeal allowed in part
[2014] UKFTT 419 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromRevenue and Customs v Representatives of Staveley (Deceased) UTTC 10-Jan-2017
Failure to take pension benefits – Inheritance Tax
UTTC INHERITANCE TAX – whether transfer of funds to a personal pension plan was a transfer of value – Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s 3(1) and s 10 – whether deceased’s omission to take lifetime pension benefits was . .
At FTTTxRevenue and Customs v Parry and Others CA 16-Oct-2018
Pension Accumulation was taxable
The court was asked whether the pension scheme transfer by the late Mrs R F Staveley, and her omission to take income benefits which were then payable, constituted, or are to be treated as constituting, for the purposes of Inheritance Tax 1984 . .
At FTTTxRevenue and Customs v Parry and Others SC 19-Aug-2020
Whether the pension scheme transfer by the late Mrs Staveley, and her omission to take income benefits which were then payable, constituted, or are to be treated as constituting, for the purposes of the Inheritance Tax 1984 a ‘disposition’ which is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.526859

Arnold v Arnold: 22 Apr 1837

A Testator having died domiciled in India, and appointed by his Will executors in India and in England, and his Executors in India having collected his Assets there, and paid his Debts, and remitted the Surplus to the English Executors for Payment of Legacies given by his Will to Legatees in England : Held, that such Legacies were not subject to Legacy Duty, although the Will was proved in this Country, and a Suit instituted here in respect of such Legacies.
[1837] EngR 650, (1837) Donn Eq 252, (1837) 47 ER 353
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.313767

Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs: SC 16 Oct 2019

A Jersey Charity created under a will of a Jersey resident was transfer to the UK, and reregistered with the UK Charity Commission. The Revenue sought to apply Inheritance Tax.
Held: Jersey was to be considered a third country for the purpose of a transfer of capital from the United Kingdom. The restriction of relief from inheritance tax to trusts governed by the law of a part of the United Kingdom is not supportable under EU law. Article 56 applies directly, must have effect in priority to inconsistent national law, whether judicial or legislative in origin.
Lady Hale (President), Lord Reed (Deputy President), Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones
[2019] UKSC 43, [2019] STI 1722, [2019] WLR(D) 588, [2019] PTSR 1924, [2019] 3 WLR 757, [2019] STC 2182
Bailii, Summary, WLRD
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 23
England and Wales

Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.642829

Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995

The deceased had owned a site of 2.5 acres on which were built a large farmhouse, and other outbuildings.
Held: The court identified the identify the three separate dimensions to the definition of agricultural property under the Act. The phrase ‘agricultural land’ in section 115(2) did not include buildings, and so the site could not be characterised as agricultural land or pasture. ‘It is as though the draftsman had started with the land and then dealt with what should be treated as going with it’.
Morritt L J
Gazette 14-Jun-1995, Independent 23-May-1995, [1996] 1 All ER, [1995] STC 689
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 115(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromStarke and Another (Executors of Brown Deceased) v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 24-Feb-1994
Mr Brown, the deceased, had owned a site on which was built a substantial farmhouse, with six bedrooms, and various outbuildings. The site formed part of a farm and the issue was whether the site was ‘agricultural land or pasture’ within the meaning . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2021; Ref: scu.89503

Pitt and Another v Holt and Another: ChD 18 Jan 2010

The claimant sought to unravel a settlement she had made as receiver for her late husband, saying that it had been made without consideration of its Inheritance Tax implications. The Revenue said that there was no operative mistake so as to allow the rule in Hastings-Bass to apply allowing the variation.
Held: For the rule to apply, there is no need to identify a breach of duty by trustees or their advisers, and in this case there was no feature which would militate against avoiding the Settlement if it were voidable rather than void. The court had be satisfied that she would not have entered into the Settlement if she had appreciated the inheritance tax consequences rather than merely that she might not have done so.
The claimant’s action had been as receiver, exercising a discretion under the 1983 Act, though she was acting in a fiduciary capacity, and the rule in Hastings-Bass was capable of applying.
It was wrong to reduce the test for Hastings-Bass availability to whether an error in law occurred. The incidence of Inheritance Tax was a matter which should have been considered, and the advisers had taken account of other taxes, and a compliance with section 89 of the 1984 Act would have mitigated the tax as was intended by the section. The settlement could accordingly be set aside under Hastings-Bass, though not under the law of mistake.
Robert Englehart QC J
[2010] EWHC 45 (Ch), [2010] STC 901, [2010] STI 1443, [2010] WTLR 269, [2010] BTC 235, (2010) 12 ITELR 807, [2010] 1 WLR 1199, [2010] 2 All ER 774
Bailii, Times
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 89, Mental Health Act 1983 94 99(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRe Hastings-Bass; Hastings v Inland Revenue CA 14-Mar-1974
Trustees of a settlement had exercised their power of advancement under the section, in order to save estate duty by transferring investments to be held on the trusts of a later settlement. However the actual effect of the advancement was that the . .
CitedByng v London Life Association CA 1990
The venue selected for a meeting of the members of a company was too small to accommodate all the members who attended, and so the chairman adjourned the meeting to an alternative venue.
Held: The decision by the chairman was set aside on the . .
CitedMettoy Pension Trustees v Evans ChD 1990
Where a trustee acts under a discretion given to him by the terms of the trust the court will interfere with his action if it is clear that he would not have so acted as he did had he not failed to take into account considerations which he ought to . .
CitedOgden and Another v Trustees of the RHS Griffiths 2003 Settlement and others; In Re Griffiths deceased ChD 25-Jan-2008
A life-time transfer which had been made under a mistake as to the donor’s chances of surviving long enough for the transfer to be exempt from Inheritance Tax was set aside. Unbeknown to the donor, he had lung cancer at the time.
Held: Lewison . .
CitedSieff v Fox ChD 23-Jun-2005
The advisers to trustees wrongly advised the trustees about the tax consequences of exercising a power of appointment in a certain way. As a result a large unforeseen Capital Gains Tax liability arose. The trustees sought to set aside the . .
CitedWolff v Wolff ChD 6-Sep-2004
The court considered its ability to redraw a document where its legal effect was misunderstood. . .
CitedEdge and others v Pensions Ombudsman and Another CA 29-Jul-1999
The Pensions Ombudsman was wrong to set aside the decision of pensions trustees where that decision was properly made within the scope of a discretion given to the Trustees. He should not carry out an investigation where no particular benefit could . .
CitedHunter v Senate Support Services Ltd and others ChD 2005
The court set aside a forfeiture of shares for non-payment of a call. The decisions of the directors to forfeit the shares and to transfer the forfeited shares to the group holding company were flawed, though not improperly motivated, because the . .
CitedAbacus Trust Company (Isle of Man) Colyb Limited v Barr, Barr, and Barr ChD 6-Feb-2003
The court considered the Rule in Hastings-Bass, and specifically (1) whether the trustee’s decision is open to challenge when the failure to take a consideration into account is not attributable to a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the . .
CitedEquitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman HL 20-Jul-2000
The directors of the Society had calculated the final bonuses to be allocated to policyholders in a manner which was found to be contrary to the terms of the policy. The language of the article conferring the power to declare such bonuses contained . .
CitedGibbon v Mitchell ChD 1990
G executed a deed surrendering his life interest in a trust fund in order to vest the property in his two children: the deed did not have that effect because of two errors (one of which was ignoring the fact that his life interest was subject to . .
CitedAnker-Petersen v Christensen ChD 2002
Where a mistake is made as to the effect of an appointment under a trust it may be possible to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to rescind the appointment. Davis J considered Millett J’s distinction between ‘effect’ and ‘consequences’: ‘An example in . .
CitedStannard v Fisons Ltd; Stannard v Fisons Pensions Trust CA 2-Jan-1990
The purchaser of a business said that the company had made insufficient contributions to its pensions fund before the transfer, and sought payment of the sums underpaid. The defendants argued that, applying Hastings-Bass, unless that principle were . .
CitedBurrell and Sharman v Burrell, Shore, Tyrrell, etc ChD 23-Feb-2005
burrell_burrellChD05
Shares were appointed by trustees in the mistaken belief that they attracted business property relief from Inheritance tax. They sought to set aside the appointment.
Held: Mann J applied the rule in Stannard v Fisons Pensions Trust and . .
CitedOgilvie v Littleboy CA 1897
Lindley LJ discussed the variation of a gift for mistake: ‘Gifts cannot be revoked, nor can deeds be set aside, simply because the donors wish they had not made them and would like to have back the property given. Where there is no fraud, no undue . .
CitedLady Hood of Avalon v Mackinnon 1909
Lady Hood made an appointment in favour of her elder daughter, in order to place her in the same position as her younger daughter to whom she had already made large appointments. But in doing so she (and her solicitor) had forgotten that she had, . .

Cited by:
CitedFutter and Another v Futter and Others ChD 11-Mar-2010
Various family settlements had been created. The trustees wished to use the rule in Hastings-Bass to re-open decisions they had made after receiving incorrect advice.
Held: The deeds were set aside as void. The Rule in Hastings-Bass derives . .
Appeal FromPitt and Another v Holt and Another CA 9-Mar-2011
. .
At First InstanceFutter and Another v Revenue and Customs; Pitt v Same SC 9-May-2013
Application of Hastings-Bass Rule
F had created two settlements. Distributions were made, but overlooking the effect of section 2(4) of the 2002 Act, creating a large tax liability. P had taken advice on the investment of the proceeds of a damages claim and created a discretionary . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 May 2021; Ref: scu.401868

Shelford and Others v Revenue and Customs (Inheritance Tax – Avoidance – ‘Home Loan Scheme’): FTTTx 27 Jan 2020

INHERITANCE TAX – avoidance – ‘home loan scheme’ – purported sale of house to interest-in-possession trust – mislabelled agreements – validity of sale – s2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 – s163 Inheritance Tax Act 1984
[2020] UKFTT 53 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 May 2021; Ref: scu.649146

Banks v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 1 Apr 2020

INHERITANCE TAX – exemption for gifts to political parties – s 24 Inheritance Tax Act 1984 – gift to UK Independence Party not within scope of exemption – whether breach of European Convention on Human Rights – whether breach of European Union law
[2020] UKUT 101 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 05 May 2021; Ref: scu.650140

Matthews v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Aug 2012

INHERITANCE TAX – death – estate passing on death – deposit account in joint names of deceased and her son – whether deceased had general power to dispose of whole account – yes – whether deceased made gift with reservation – yes – whether whole balance on account subject to inheritance tax – yes – appeal dismissed.
[2012] UKFTT 658 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 28 April 2021; Ref: scu.466114

Buzzoni and Others v HM Revenue and Customs – FTC/57-59/2011: UTTC 19 Oct 2012

UTTC Whether s. 102(1)(b) of the Finance Act 1986 (gift with reservation) applies to a gift of a reversionary underlease containing covenants from the donee mirroring covenants in the donor’s head lease. Application of Ingram v. IRC. Decision of the First-tier Tribunal upheld: such covenants do constitute a reservation within the section.
[2012] UKUT 360 (TCC)
Bailii
Finance Act 1986 102(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBuzzoni and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 21-Apr-2011
FTTTx INHERITANCE TAX – grant of future underlease – covenants reserved – whether donor excluded or virtually excluded – appeal dismissed . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromBuzzoni and Others v Revenue and Customs, Re The Estate of Lia Kamhi (Deceased)) CA 19-Dec-2013
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 April 2021; Ref: scu.466700

Frankland v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: CA 7 Nov 1997

Shares which were transferred within the first tax quarter after a death lost the benefit of Inheritance Tax exemption on their transfer into a discretionary trust.
Peter Gibson, Thorpe, Chadwick LJJ
Times 02-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2674, [1997] STC 1450, [1997] BTC 8045
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 144
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCape Brandy Syndicate v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1921
Rowlatt J said: ‘In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied’ and . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 April 2021; Ref: scu.80660

Charnley and Others v Revenue and Customs (Inheritance Tax : Business : Agricultural Reliefs): FTTTx 28 Oct 2019

INHERITANCE TAX – Agricultural property relief – Business property relief – whether dwelling was a farmhouse – nexus between farmhouse and land – agricultural purposes – whether business wholly or mainly consisted of holding investments – appeal allowed
[2019] UKFTT 650 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.644024

Ingram and Palmer-Tomkinson (Executors of the Estate of Lady Jane Lindsay Morgan Ingram Deceased) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: CA 28 Jul 1997

The deceased had first conveyed property to her solicitor. Leases back were then created in her favour, and then the freeholds were conveyed at her direction to her children and grandchildren. They were potentially exempt transfers.
Held: (Millett LJ dissenting) The conveyance to the solicitor left the solicitor holding the property as bare trustee for the deceased. It was not possible for such a trustee then to create effective leases in favour of the beneficiary of that trust. Transactions allowing transfer and leaseback of house were ineffective to avoid Inheritance Tax; since there had been a benefit reserved.
Millett LJ observed that for overreaching purposes there must be not merely two parties to the transaction but two independent parties who are capable of dealing with each other at arm’s length.
Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Evans And Lord Justice Millett
Times 11-Sep-1997, Gazette 10-Sep-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2212, [1997] 4 All ER 395, [1997] STC 1234
Finance Act 1986 102(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromIngram and Another v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 23-May-1995
Lady Ingram had first conveyed properties to her solicitor who on the next day let the properties back to her, and on the day after conveyed the freehold of the properties to her family.
Held: The leases in favour of Lady Ingram, having been . .
CitedRye v Rye HL 1962
Two brothers were in partneship in unequal shares, but acquired a property for use by the business which they held in equal shares. They agreed a parol yearly tenancy between themselves as owners and as partners. After one died his son took over his . .
MentionedAttorney General v Earl Grey QBD 1898
. .
MentionedAttorney General v Earl Grey CA 2-Jan-1898
The court considered the effectiveness of a gift from father to son for estate duty purposes, where the revenue said that the father had reseved an interest in the land to himself. The conveyance to the defendant donee contained the following . .
MentionedGrey (Earl) v Attorney General HL 1900
The donor conveyed land to his son by way of gift but reserved an annual rentcharge during his life which was charged on the land conveyed and which his son covenanted to pay (together with the other liabilities of the donor), and retained the right . .
CitedRe Cochrane 1905
(High Court of Ireland) The court considered the effectivenmess of a gift with a reservation to the donor, distinguishing Earl Grey: ‘The limitation of this annuity, although prior to the gift, was, as well as being charged on the land, secured by . .
CitedKildrummy (Jersey) Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners IHCS 1990
It was not possible in Scottish law for a man to grant a lease to a nominee for himself: (Lord Hope) ‘I have, as I have said, no difficulty in the concept by which the title to property and the beneficial interest are separated, the title being held . .
CitedSt Aubyn v Attorney General HL 12-Jul-1951
The donor exercised powers of appointment ‘to make some part of the settled property his own’, and it was ‘wholly irrelevant that by a contemporaneous or later transaction he surrenders his life interest in other parts of it’. The different parts of . .
MentionedCommissioner for Stamp Duties of New South Wales v Perpetual Trust Company Ltd PC 1943
(Australia) The court considered reservation of benefit rules. Under the settlement the trustees were required to hold certain company shares, to apply the income for the maintenance of the settlor’s son during his minority, and to transfer the . .
CitedRe Cochrane CA 1906
(Court of Appeal of Ireland) The court considered the effectivenmess of a gift with a reservation to the donor. As to the Earl Grey case, if ever there was a case to which the statute applied it was The Attorney-General v Grey. The court referred to . .
CitedAdvocate (HM) v M’Taggart Stewart 1906
. .
CitedMunro v Commissioner for Stamp Duties PC 1933
In 1909, the deceased orally agreed with his six children that he and they would carry on the business of graziers on land owned by him as partners under a partnership at will. In 1913 the deceased transferred by way of gift the freehold interest in . .
CitedLang v Webb 1912
(High Court of Australia) In 1908 the deceased had transferred and conveyed a piece of land to each of her three sons; on the same date as, but subsequently to, the execution of the transfers and conveyances there had been executed by the deceased . .
CitedCommissioner of Stamp Duties of New South Wales v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd PC 1943
The Board consideerd the application of the retention of benefit rules. Lord Russell of Killowen said: ‘the entire exclusion of the donor from . . enjoyment which is contemplated . . is entire exclusion from . . enjoyment of the beneficial interest . .
CitedOakes v Commissioner of Stamp Duties of New South Wales PC 1953
oakes_csdnswPC1954
A father made a gift of land in favour of himself and his four children in equal shares but then retained wide powers of management for which he reserved the right to charge remuneration.
Held: The donor was entirely excluded from the . .
CitedWalsh v Lonsdale CA 1882
Lonsdale purported to grant to Walsh a seven year lease with rent payable in advance. The lease was not embodied in a deed, and when Walsh went into possession, an annual tenancy with rent payable in arrear was created. Walsh did not pay in advance, . .
CitedLang v Webb 1912
(High Court of Australia) In 1908 the deceased had transferred and conveyed a piece of land to each of her three sons; on the same date as, but subsequently to, the execution of the transfers and conveyances there had been executed by the deceased . .
CitedFaulkner v Lowe 1848
A covenant by one person with himself and other was senseless. . .
CitedHenderson v Astwood PC 1894
A sale was undertaken by a mortgagee, ostensibly to a third party but in reality to his nominee. The land was conveyed by the mortgagee to his nominee, who executed a declaration that he held the land in trust for the mortgagee, and who subsequently . .
CitedW T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
CitedRegent Oil Co Ltd v JA Gregory (Hatch End) Ltd CA 1966
No general distinction is to be drawn between the two types of mortgage and sub-mortgage. The court considered the practice for a mortgagor to attorn tenant to his mortgagee. The tenancy contained no covenants and was merely a device to give the . .
CitedLewis v Hillman 1852
A sale by a sole trustee to his nominee posing as a bona fide purchaser was held to be incapable of overreaching the interests of the beneficiaries. It was ‘powerless for that purpose’. . .
CitedIngle v Richards (No 1) 1860
. .
CitedRe George Whichelow Ltd; Bradshaw v Orpen 1953
A mother had left shares her in a company to three daughters for life with remainder to their children who should attain 21. The three daughters and their children directed the trustees to appoint the eldest of the daughters as their proxy, or to . .
CitedIn Re Brockbank 1948
A new trustee was to be appointed. The beneficiaries, all of full age and capacity wanted the remaining trustee to appoint someone they nominated. The trustee purported to exercise the discretion given to him in the trust deed and appointed someone . .
CitedHirachand Punamchand v Temple CA 1911
The defendant, a British army officer in India, had given a promissory note to the plaintiff moneylenders. Unable to pay, he suggested they apply to his father, Sir Richard Temple. In reply, Sir Richard Temple’s solicitors wrote saying they were . .
CitedBelaney v Belaney 1867
The testator bought the residue of a 99 year lease and took an assignment of the term. In the following year he bought the freehold reversion and, by a deed which recited that he was desirous that the term should not merge in the freehold, the . .
CitedFarrer v Farrer’s Ltd 1888
A sale by a mortgagee to a company of which he was a director and shareholder was held to be effective to extinguish the equity of redemption, but only because the sale was negotiated between the mortgagee and the other directors at arms’ length. A . .
CitedWilliams v Scott PC 1900
(New South Wales) The Board was asked whether an abstract of title was good because it appeared from the abstract that there had been a purchase by a trustee without full consent or release from the beneficiaries.
Held: The purchase of trust . .
CitedAttorney General v Worrall CA 1895
The donor gave his son the benefit of a debt of about andpound;24,000 which was owing to him, in return for which the son covenanted to pay the father an annuity of andpound;735 p.a. during his life.
Held: ‘It has been held that in cases of . .
CitedSt Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark (No.2) CA 1973
When looking at a contract ‘one must construe the document according to the natural meaning of the words contained in the document as a whole, read in the light of surrounding circumstances.’
The contra preferetem rule can only come into play . .
CitedCommissioners of Inland Revenue v McGuckian HL 21-May-1997
Steps which had been inserted into a commercial transaction, but which had no purpose other than the saving of tax are to be disregarded when assessing the tax effect of the scheme. The modern approach to statutory construction is to have regard to . .
CitedGreyv Ellison 1856
A policy of insurance was created in which one department of an insurance company purported to effect a contract with another department of the same company. Although different individuals were parties to the contract, they all contracted as agents . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromIngram and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 10-Dec-1998
To protect her estate from Inheritance Tax, the deceased gave land to her solicitor, but then took back a lease. The solicitor then conveyed the land on freehold on to members of her family.
Held: The lease-back by the nominee was not void as . .
CitedHSBC Bank Plc v Dyche and Another ChD 18-Nov-2009
The parties disputed the claimed beneficial interest of the second defendant. The second defendant (C) said that it had been purchased for him by the first defendant (D) from C’s trustee in bankruptcy, and was thereafter held in trust for him on the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.142609

Gray v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 24 Feb 1994

Partnership interests in a tenanted freehold estate can be valued together. The court considered the ‘statutory hypothetical sale’ when valuing property for Inheritance Tax purposes: ‘The property must be assumed to have been capable of sale in the open market, even if in fact it was inherently unassignable or held subject to restrictions on sale. The question is what a purchaser in the open market would have paid to enjoy whatever rights attached to the property at the relevant date (see IRC -v- Crossman [1937] AC 26). Furthermore, the hypothesis must be applied to the property as it actually existed and not to some other property, even if in real life a vendor would have been likely to make some changes or improvements before putting it on the market (see Duke of Buccleuch v IRC [1967] 1 AC 506 at 525). To this extent, but only to this extent, the express terms of the statute may introduce an element of artificiality into the hypothesis. In all other respects, the theme which runs through the authorities is that one assumes that the hypothetical vendor and purchaser did whatever reasonable people buying and selling such property would be likely to have done in real life.
Times 24-Feb-1994, [1994] STC 360
Inheritance Taxes Act 1974
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Crossman HL 1937
For a valuation for estate taxes, the value is what a purchaser in the open market would have paid to enjoy whatever rights attached to the property at the relevant date.
Lord Russell of Killowen said that a share is the interest of a . .
CitedDuke of Buccleuch v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1967
When a valuation was to be attributed to a property the test must be applied to the property as it actually existed and not to some other property, even if in real life a vendor would have been likely to make some changes or improvements before . .

Cited by:
CitedRyde International Plc v London Regional Transport CA 5-Mar-2004
The landowner had developed land which was then made the subject of compulsory purchase. The court was asked how the compensation was to be calculated. The landowner expected to sell the development as a whole. The respondent argued that the profit . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.80993

Thomas, The Estate of v Revenue and Customs (Tax – Inheritance Tax – Agricultural Land): UTLC 10 Jan 2020

TAX – INHERITANCE TAX – agricultural land – valuation under s.190 Inheritance Act 1984 – whether best consideration achieved – residual valuation method – comparable method preferred – best consideration determined at pounds 645,000
[2020] UKUT 6 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 04 April 2021; Ref: scu.647075

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Eversden and Another: ChD 10 Jul 2002

A settlor had created a discretionary trust in favour of her husband. The Commissioners sought to apply the reservation of benefit provisions.
Held: The settlor’s retained entitlement as a discretionary beneficiary did constitute a reservation of interest within section 102(3). However, the exemption from Inheritance Tax in favour of transfers between spouses had overriding effect, so that the rules taxing gifts with a reservation of benefit for the donor did not apply. Whether a gift was an exempt transfer was determined at the time of the gift, and was a for once and for all assessment.
Mr Justice Lightman
Times 18-Jul-2002, Gazette 19-Sep-2002, [2002] EWHC 1360 (Ch), [2002] WTLR 1013, [2002] BTC 8035, [2002] STI 1008, [2002] NPC 96, [2002] STC 1109
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 18 102(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedIngram and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 10-Dec-1998
To protect her estate from Inheritance Tax, the deceased gave land to her solicitor, but then took back a lease. The solicitor then conveyed the land on freehold on to members of her family.
Held: The lease-back by the nominee was not void as . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromCommissioners of Inland Revenue v Eversden Eversden (As Executors of the Will of Greenstock Deceased) CA 15-May-2003
The executors challenged the assessment to Inheritance tax on the estate. The commissioners claimed that a gift of property into a trust included a sufficient reservation of benefit to disallow it as an exempt transfer.
Held: The scheme was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 March 2021; Ref: scu.174446

Green and Another v Inland Revenue: ChD 11 Jan 2005

The deceased died intestate and with a negative valued personal estate, but with assets in trusts, including a revocable life interest in property. The question was whether his debts could be set off against the trusts interests to reduce them below the limit.
Held: The literal approach in Cape Brandy had now been superceded by a purposive interpretation of taxation statutes as in McGuckian, and ‘there is nothing inherently illogical or contrary to that purpose in allowing personal liabilities to be used to reduce the overall (aggregated) estate because it might be said that that is consistent with the aggregation mechanism that Parliament chose. The statute has created its own logical world by deeming trust property to be owned by the deceased. ‘ Nevertheless, the court was bound by Re Barnes, and the debts could not be set off.
Mann J
[2005] EWHC 14 (Ch), [2005] 1 WLR 1772
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 222
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCape Brandy Syndicate v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1921
Rowlatt J said: ‘In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied’ and . .
CitedCommissioners of Inland Revenue v McGuckian HL 21-May-1997
Steps which had been inserted into a commercial transaction, but which had no purpose other than the saving of tax are to be disregarded when assessing the tax effect of the scheme. The modern approach to statutory construction is to have regard to . .
CitedRe Barnes 1939
A gift was made within three years of death. Under estate duty law it fell to be treated as property passing on the death. The deceased’s estate was heavily insolvent with a deficit of over andpound;90,000 and the executrix claimed that the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 March 2021; Ref: scu.220992

Wolff v Wolff: ChD 6 Sep 2004

The court considered its ability to redraw a document where its legal effect was misunderstood.
Mann J
[2004] EWHC 2110 (Ch), [2004] STI 2068, [2004] WTLR 1349, [2004] STC 1633, [2009] BTC 8017, [2004] NPC 135
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPitt and Another v Holt and Others ChD 18-Jan-2010
The deceased had created a settlement in favour of his wife. He suffered serious injury and placed the damages in trust, but in a form which created an unnecessary liability to Inheritance Tax on his death. The wife’s mental health act receiver now . .
CitedPitt and Another v Holt and Another ChD 18-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to unravel a settlement she had made as receiver for her late husband, saying that it had been made without consideration of its Inheritance Tax implications. The Revenue said that there was no operative mistake so as to allow . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 March 2021; Ref: scu.231585

The Perpetual Executors and Trustees Association of Australia Limited v The Commissioner of Taxes of The Commonwealth of Australia: PC 19 Jan 1954

Australia – The executors appealed against an assessment to (Australian) Estate Duty.
Oaksey, Morton of Henryton, Reid, Asquith of Bishopstone, Cohen LL
[1954] UKPC 4, [1954] 2 WLR 171, [1954] TR 29, (1954) 47 R and IT 293, (1954) 33 ATC 30, [1954] 1 All ER 339, [1954] AC 114
Bailii
Australia

Updated: 16 March 2021; Ref: scu.445867

Buzzoni and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Apr 2011

FTTTx INHERITANCE TAX – grant of future underlease – covenants reserved – whether donor excluded or virtually excluded – appeal dismissed
[2011] UKFTT 267 (TC)
Bailii
Cited by:
Appeal fromBuzzoni and Others v HM Revenue and Customs – FTC/57-59/2011 UTTC 19-Oct-2012
UTTC Whether s. 102(1)(b) of the Finance Act 1986 (gift with reservation) applies to a gift of a reversionary underlease containing covenants from the donee mirroring covenants in the donor’s head lease. . .
At FTTTxBuzzoni and Others v Revenue and Customs, Re The Estate of Lia Kamhi (Deceased)) CA 19-Dec-2013
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.442964

Inland Revenue v Arkwright and Another: ChD 16 Jul 2004

The deceased and his wife had held their property as tenants in common in equal shares. The Special Commissioner had assessed the interest of the deceased in the property at less than one half of the vacant possession value.
Held: It was not part of the commissioner’s job to reach any conclusion as to the value of the deceased’s interest. Whether a purchaser would take into account the surviving wife’s interests in setting his bid, was also a matter for the Lands Tribunal to decide upon proper evidence.
Gloster J
[2004] EWHC 1720 (Ch), Times 04-Aug-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 1411
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 161 225, Special Commissioners (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations 1994 (1994 No 1811) 23
England and Wales

Updated: 03 March 2021; Ref: scu.199376

McCall and Another v HM Revenue and Customs: CANI 25 Feb 2009

The deceased had inherited grass land from her husband. It had planning permission for development. The personal representatives appealed against a finding that relief was not available as a relevant business property.
Girvan LJ, Coghlin LJ and Deeny J
[2009] NICA 12, [2009] STC 990, [2009] STI 1124, [2009] BTC 8059
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 104
Cited by:
CitedHM Revenue and Customs v A M Brander As Exec of The Will of The Late Fourth Earl of Balfour UTTC 16-Aug-2010
UTTC Inheritance tax – Exempt transfers and relief – Business property relief Replacement property – Deceased having liferent interest in family estate – Deceased declared to be fee simple proprietor of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 February 2021; Ref: scu.343911

Re Philipson-Stow: HL 1961

The section excluded from liability for estate duty property ‘passing on the death which is situate out of Great Britain if it is shown that the proper law regulating the devolution of the property situate, or the disposition under or by reason of which it passes, is the law neither of England nor of Scotland.’ Issues relating to a disposition of movables must be determined according to the law of the country of domicile of the deceased at the date of his death. The proper law ‘regulating’ a disposition of immovable property for the purposes of section 28(2) was the lex situs.
Lord Denning confirmed that the question of interpretation depends upon the intention of the testator: ‘We are dealing with a will: and, whilst I would agree that the construction of a will depends on the intention of the testator, I would say that in no other respect does his intention determine the law applicable to it.
Let me take first the case where there is a disposition of movable property by will. There is no doubt that the proper law regulating the disposition of movables is the law of the domicile of the testator at the time of his death. In the leading case on this subject Lord Carnworth used the word ‘regulate’ in this very connection. When a person dies domiciled abroad, he said, ‘in every case the succession to personal property will be regulated not according to the law of this country but to that of his domicile’: see Enohin v Wylie. There is perhaps an exception in regard to the construction of his will: for if a question arises as to the interpretation of the will and it should appear that the testator has changed his domicile between making his will and his death, his will may fall to be construed according to the law of his domicile at the time he made it: though in all other respects it would be governed by the law of his domicile at the date of his death.’
Lord Reid, Lord Denning
[1961] AC 727
Finance Act 1949 28(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRe Levick ChD 1963
The proper law ‘regulating’ the disposition of movable property for the purposes of section 28(2) was the law of the testator’s domicile at the time of his death. Plowman J said that the term ‘regulate’ was concerned with the material or essential . .
CitedDellar v Zivy and others ChD 9-Oct-2007
Disappointed beneficiaries said they had been told that the deceased would leave certain shares to them. He did not do so, and they said the will had incorrectly interpreted his instructions. The defendants denied that the English court had . .
CitedAkers and Others v Samba Financial Group SC 1-Feb-2017
Saad Investments was a Cayman Islands company in liquidation. The liquidator brought an action here, but the defendant sought a stay saying that another forum was clearly more appropriate. Shares in Saudi banks were said to be held in trust for the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2021; Ref: scu.259864

Re Levick: ChD 1963

The proper law ‘regulating’ the disposition of movable property for the purposes of section 28(2) was the law of the testator’s domicile at the time of his death. Plowman J said that the term ‘regulate’ was concerned with the material or essential validity of a will, rather than with its interpretation: ‘In the case of immovables it is lex situs (as the House of Lords held) and in the case of movables it is, in my judgment, the lex domicilii, from which the validity of the disposition stems. As Mr Foster conceded, if the law of South Africa had forbidden the disposition with which I am concerned, it could not have taken effect.’
Plowman J
[1963] 1 WLR 31
Finance Act 1949 28(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRe Philipson-Stow HL 1961
The section excluded from liability for estate duty property ‘passing on the death which is situate out of Great Britain if it is shown that the proper law regulating the devolution of the property situate, or the disposition under or by reason of . .

Cited by:
CitedDellar v Zivy and others ChD 9-Oct-2007
Disappointed beneficiaries said they had been told that the deceased would leave certain shares to them. He did not do so, and they said the will had incorrectly interpreted his instructions. The defendants denied that the English court had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 February 2021; Ref: scu.259865

McCall and others v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 7 Apr 2008

SCIT Inheritance tax – Exempt transfers and relief – Business Property – Relevant Business Property – Fields let out under ‘conacre’ or agistment arrangements to graziers – Whether a business – Work carried out by son-in-law while owner’s mental capacity failed – Whether business belonged to the landowner – Whether business excluded from relief as consisting wholly or mainly of making or holding investments – Section 105(3) IHTA 1984.
[2008] UKSPC SPC00678
Bailii

Updated: 07 February 2021; Ref: scu.267763

Glowacki (Deceased) v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 21 Aug 2007

SCIT INHERITANCE TAX – Deed of Variation – variation purporting to take effect as a gift by the deceased before death – whether within s 142 IHTA 1984 and an exempt transfer under s 17 – no – Revenue determination that nil rate band to be set against value of ‘gifted’ property based on variation taking effect – variation of no effect because conditional on intended tax effect – determination accordingly quashed.
[2007] UKSPC SPC00631
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 142

Updated: 05 February 2021; Ref: scu.262389

Lloyds TSB Bank Plc (Antrobus Deceased) v Inland Revenue (No 1): SCIT 17 Oct 2002

SCIT INHERITANCE TAX – agricultural property relief – freehold house which was owned and occupied by the deceased – agreed that it was a farmhouse – whether it was of a character appropriate to the property – yes – IHTA 1984 s 115(2).
Miss Antrobus had lived in a substantial freehold house, surrounded by about 126 acres of freehold land and 6.54 acres of tenanted land all of which was agricultural land or pasture. The Inland Revenue agreed the house was a farmhouse, but questioned whether the farmhouse was ‘of a character appropriate to the property’ within the meaning of section 115(2), ‘the property’ being the 126 acres of freehold land and the 6.54 acres of tenanted land which constituted the agricultural land or pasture. The taxpayer argued that the test as to whether a farmhouse was ‘of a character appropriate to the property’ was whether it properly belonged to the surrounding farm.
Held: The dwellinghouse was appropriate, by reference to its size, content and layout, with the farm buildings and the particular area of farmland being farmed: ‘the principles which have been established for deciding whether a farmhouse is of a character appropriate to the property may be summarised as: first, one should consider whether the house is appropriate by reference to its size, content and layout, with the farm buildings and the particular area of farmland being farmed (Korner); secondly, one should consider whether the house is proportionate in size and nature to the requirements of the farming activities conducted on the agricultural land or pasture in question (Starke); thirdly that although one cannot describe a farmhouse which satisfies the ‘character appropriate’ test one knows one when one sees it (Dixon); fourthly, one should ask whether the educated rural layman would regard the property as a house with land or a farm (Dixon); and, finally, one should consider the historical dimension and ask how long the house in question has been associated with the agricultural property and whether there was a history of agricultural production (Dixon). ‘
Dr Nuala Brice
[2002] UKSC SPC00336
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 8115(2)
Citing:
CitedDixon v Inland Revenue Commissioners SCIT 22-Oct-2001
SCIT INHERITANCE TAX – relief for agricultural property – cottage with garden and orchard extending to 0.6 acres – whether activities were agriculture – whether orchard and garden were agricultural land or . .
CitedStarke and Another (Executors of Brown Deceased) v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 24-Feb-1994
Mr Brown, the deceased, had owned a site on which was built a substantial farmhouse, with six bedrooms, and various outbuildings. The site formed part of a farm and the issue was whether the site was ‘agricultural land or pasture’ within the meaning . .
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Korner HL 19-Feb-1969
Income tax, Schedule D – D eduction – Farm ing – Maintenance, etc., expenditure on farm house – Whether expenditure for domestic purposes distinct from those of the trade – Income Tax A c t 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2, c. 10) 55. 124, . .

Cited by:
See AlsoLloyds TSB Private Banking Plc (personal representative of Rosemary Antrobus deceased) v Inland Revenue (Capital Taxes); Re Cookhill Priory (No 2) LT 10-Oct-2005
LT TAX – Inheritance Tax – agricultural property relief – agricultural value – agricultural property – farmhouses – whether house occupied by ‘lifestyle’ farmer could be farmhouse – held bid of such person could . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.242349

Gartside v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 13 Dec 1967

Before his death, the deceased had advanced sums to his sons. The House was asked whether they were liable to Estate Duty.
Held: Lord Reid said: ‘no object of a discretionary trust has, as such, any legal right to or in the capital’, although he may possess limited equitable rights against the trustee; ‘mere expectancy or hope of consideration by the trustee” and ”In possession’ must mean that the interest enables you to claim now whatever may be the subject of the interest. For instance, if it is the current income from a certain fund your claim may yield nothing if there is no income, but your claim is a valid claim, and if there is any income you are entitled to get it. But a right to require trustees to consider whether they will pay you something does not enable you to claim anything. If the trustees do decide to pay you something, you do not get it by reason of having the right to have your case considered: you get it only because the trustees have decided to give it to you.’
Lord Wilberforce said that the circumstances in which a beneficiary under a discretionary trust may seek protection, and the nature of the protection he may expect to obtain, will depend on the court’s discretion.
Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne
[1968] AC 553, [1967] UKHL 6, [1968] 1 All ER 121, [1967] TR 309, [1968] 2 WLR 277
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Stannard CACD 1-Nov-2005
The defendant had been convicted of offences in which he had operated to purchase companies and use false debentures to evade corporation tax. Compensation had been sought under the 1988 Act. It was argued that the confiscation order should be . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 January 2021; Ref: scu.234398

Lloyds TSB Private Banking Plc (personal representative of Rosemary Antrobus deceased) v Inland Revenue (Capital Taxes); Re Cookhill Priory (No 2): LT 10 Oct 2005

LT TAX – Inheritance Tax – agricultural property relief – agricultural value – agricultural property – farmhouses – whether house occupied by ‘lifestyle’ farmer could be farmhouse – held bid of such person could not represent agricultural value – Inheritance Tax Act 1984 s 115(2) and (3)
George Bartlett QC : ‘a farmhouse for the purposes of section 115(2) is the house of the person who lives in it in order to farm the land comprised in the farm and who farms the land on a day to day basis. The agricultural value of the house in the present case therefore falls to be determined on the assumption that the perpetual covenant to be implied by virtue of section 115(3) would have prevented its use other than in this way. This would have excluded, therefore, the lifestyle purchaser whose principal reason for living in the house was the amenity afforded by it and by the land.’
George Bartlett QC The President and Mr N J Rose FRICS
[2005] EWLands DET – 47 – 2004
Bailii
Citing:
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Korner HL 19-Feb-1969
Income tax, Schedule D – D eduction – Farm ing – Maintenance, etc., expenditure on farm house – Whether expenditure for domestic purposes distinct from those of the trade – Income Tax A c t 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2, c. 10) 55. 124, . .
CitedLindsay v Commissioners of Inland Revenue 1953
The court was asked whether a building was a farmhouse for the purpose of deciding whether reliefs were available for capital expenditure. . .
See AlsoLloyds TSB Bank Plc (Antrobus Deceased) v Inland Revenue (No 1) SCIT 17-Oct-2002
SCIT INHERITANCE TAX – agricultural property relief – freehold house which was owned and occupied by the deceased – agreed that it was a farmhouse – whether it was of a character appropriate to the property – yes . .
CitedCommissioners of Inland Revenue v John M Whiteford and Son 1962
The farm was farmed by a father and son in partnership. They had both lived in the original farmhouse, but a new house was built to house the son. The issue was whether the new house was a farmhouse or an agricultural cottage. If it was a cottage . .
CitedDuke of Buccleuch v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1967
When a valuation was to be attributed to a property the test must be applied to the property as it actually existed and not to some other property, even if in real life a vendor would have been likely to make some changes or improvements before . .
CitedStarke and Another (Executors of Brown Deceased) v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 24-Feb-1994
Mr Brown, the deceased, had owned a site on which was built a substantial farmhouse, with six bedrooms, and various outbuildings. The site formed part of a farm and the issue was whether the site was ‘agricultural land or pasture’ within the meaning . .
CitedProsser v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue SCIT 12-Mar-2003
INHERITANCE TAX – interest on outstanding tax – whether not due on account of Human Rights points – interest due. . .
CitedHigginson (Executors of) v Inland Revenue SCIT 3-Sep-2002
Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s.115(2) – Agricultural relief – ‘Farmhouse’ . .
CitedDixon v Inland Revenue Commissioners SCIT 22-Oct-2001
SCIT INHERITANCE TAX – relief for agricultural property – cottage with garden and orchard extending to 0.6 acres – whether activities were agriculture – whether orchard and garden were agricultural land or . .
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Stenhouse’s Trustees 1992
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 January 2021; Ref: scu.231288

HM Revenue and Customs v Trustees of the Nelson Dance Family Settlement: ChD 22 Jan 2009

Appeal by HMRC from a decision giving judgment for the Trustees on a preliminary issue in relation to the liability of the Trustees to pay tax under the 1984 Act 1984 in respect of a transfer by Mr Dance of agricultural land into the hands of the Trustees in late 2002 or early 2003. The preliminary issue concerned the question whether the transfer qualified for business property relief under s. 104 of the IHTA.
Sales J
[2009] EWHC 71 (Ch), [2009] STI 260, [2009] NPC 11, [2009] BTC 8003, [2009] STC 802
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 104
England and Wales

Updated: 25 January 2021; Ref: scu.280148

Perry v Inland Revenue: SCIT 5 Apr 2005

SCIT INHERITANCE TAX – insolvent estate – whether Appellant liable for inheritance tax as a person in whom the property was vested in respect of a joint account held by the Appellant and the deceased – yes – appeal dismissed – IHTA 1984 Ss1-5 and 200(1)(c)
CAPITAL TRANSFER TAX – insolvent estate – whether Appellant liable for capital transfer tax as transferee in respect of a disposition made by the deceased before his death being the grant to the Appellant of a licence to occupy property rent free – yes – appeal dismissed – FA 1975 Ss 19, 20, 23 and 25
[2005] UKSPC SPC00474
Bailii

Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.228322

Seymour and others v Inland Revenue: SCIT 11 Nov 2004

SCIT Business property relief for inheritance tax purposes – Whether the whole or Ragley Hall qualified notwithstanding part of the interior in private occupation – Section 110 – Meaning of asset – Building wholly or mainly used for business – No provision for apportionment – Exterior wholly used for business – Single asset – Appeal allowed
[2004] UKSC SPC00444
Bailii
Inheritance Tax 1984 110

Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.221415

Peter John St. Barbe Green, David Robert Mitson (Trustees of the Will of Consuelo Dowager Duchess of Manchester v the Commissioners of Inland Revenue: ChD 11 Jan 2005

The taxpayer appealed a notice of determination of liability of the estate for Inheritance Tax purposes. He sought to set off an excess of liabilities over assets in the deceased’s own estate against assets held in settlements.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘Inheritance tax is charged on death by virtue of the deemed transfer of value in section 4. That is a transfer of value ‘equal to the value of [the deceased’s] estate immediately before his death’. His estate is the ‘aggregate of all property to which he is beneficially interested’. The word ‘property’ is important here. It is not defined for these purposes (section 272 of the Act contains a partial definition in it that states what the expression includes but not what it means), but it is important to note that section 49(1) (which brings in the settled assets) does so by deeming the deceased to be beneficially entitled to ‘the property’ in which his life interest subsists. It does not say ‘net property’ (ie the value of the property net of trust liabilities) but that is what it must mean’
The Honourable Mr Justice Mann
[2005] EWHC 14 (Ch), Times 14-Jan-2005
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 224 593) 222
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCommissioners of Inland Revenue v McGuckian HL 21-May-1997
Steps which had been inserted into a commercial transaction, but which had no purpose other than the saving of tax are to be disregarded when assessing the tax effect of the scheme. The modern approach to statutory construction is to have regard to . .
CitedCape Brandy Syndicate v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1921
Rowlatt J said: ‘In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied’ and . .
AppliedRe Barnes 1939
A gift was made within three years of death. Under estate duty law it fell to be treated as property passing on the death. The deceased’s estate was heavily insolvent with a deficit of over andpound;90,000 and the executrix claimed that the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 January 2021; Ref: scu.221485

Countess Fitzwilliam v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 1 Jul 1993

HL Tax avoidance – Capital transfer tax – Whether composite transaction within the Ramsay principle – Whether series of transactions preordained – Whether reverter to settlor exemption applies – Settlor becoming absolutely entitled to property comprised in settlement – Whether property comprised in settlement originated from testator’s estate – Whether testator a settlor of settlement – Whether property reverted to all settlors of the property – Finance Act 1975, ss 19, 20, 24, 47(1 A), and Sch 5, paras 1, 4 and 5, Finance Act 1976, ss 86 and 87, Finance Act 1978, s 69(7).
[1993] UKHL TC – 67 – 614, [1993] STI 1038, 67 TC 614, [1993] STC 502, [1993] 1 WLR 1189, [1993] 3 All ER 184
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 January 2021; Ref: scu.559864

Hood v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 30 Oct 2018

The court was asked: ‘ whether a reversionary long sub-lease of a valuable London residential property, granted on favourable terms by the taxpayer to her three sons in 1997, was ‘property subject to a reservation’ within the meaning of section 102 of the Finance Act 1986 (‘FA 1986’) when she died in 2008, as it happens some four years before the sub-lease would have fallen into possession. If the sub-lease was property subject to a reservation in the taxpayer’s estate, it formed part of her estate chargeable to inheritance tax (‘IHT’) on her death. If, on the other hand, the sub-lease was not property subject to a reservation in her estate, it escaped any charge to IHT on her death, because (a) it was not deemed by section 102 to remain part of her estate immediately before her death, and (b) the original grant of the sub-lease was a potentially exempt transfer (‘PET’) which she had survived by more than seven years, and which consequently became an exempt transfer.’
[2018] EWCA Civ 2405
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 January 2021; Ref: scu.628683

Lynall v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 27 Oct 1971

HL Estate duty – Share valuation – Unquoted shares – What information to be deemed available to hypothetical purchaser in open market – Finance Act 1894 (57 6 58 Viet., c.30), 5.7(5).
[1971] UKHL TC – 47 – 375, 47 TC 375, [1971] 3 All ER 914, [1972] AC 680, [1971] 3 WLR 759, [1971] TR 309
Bailii
Finance Act 1894
England and Wales

Updated: 16 January 2021; Ref: scu.559819

Inland Revenue v Macalister: HL 10 Apr 1924

The Finance (1909-10) Act 1910, section 58, enacts-‘(1) Any legacy or succession duty which under the . . Succession Duty Act 1853 or any other Act . . is payable at the rate of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. shall be payable at the rate of 10 per cent. on the amount or value of the legacy or succession. . . (4) This section shall take effect in the case of legacy duty only where the testator by whose will the legacy is given . . dies on or after the 30th day of April 1909 . . and, in the case of a succession arising under a disposition, only if the first succession under the disposition arises on or after that date.’
A testator who was beneficially entitled to certain heritable property in fee, subject to the liferent interest of his mother, died in 1900, leaving a testamentary disposition by which he disponed his estate to his mother in liferent and to a cousin in fee. The liferentrix died in 1910, and thereupon the cousin became entitled to the property, and succession duty became payable upon it.
Held (aff. the judgment of the First Division) that for the purposes of section 58 (4) of the Act of 1910 the succession to the property arose on the testator’s death in 1900, and that accordingly the rate of succession duty payable by his cousin was only 5 per cent.
Viscount Cave, Viscount Finlay, Lord Dunedin, Lord Shaw, and Lord Sumner
[1924] UKHL 482, 61 SLR 482
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 15 January 2021; Ref: scu.631556