The taxpayers appealed against a decision allowing an appeal by the respondents, that shares in a company which owned land from which it ran a residential caravan park, were shares in a business consisting wholly or mainly of making investments, and that accordingly the transfer did not attract exemption.
Held: The finding of the Commissioners was in essence a finding of fact and unappealable. The divisional court should not have reversed the finding, and the the commissioners’ decision was re-instated. The business incoprorated both service and investment elements.
Judges:
Lady Justice Hale Lord Justice Carnwath
Citations:
[2004] WTLR 75, [2004] STC 147, [2003] STI 2276, [2004] BTC 8003, [2003] EWCA Civ 1763, Times 09-Dec-2003, Gazette 22-Jan-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 105(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Inland Revenue Commissioners v George and another ChD 27-Feb-2003
The company ran a residential homes park. The users owned the caravans, but the taxpayer owned the land. They claimed exemption on a transfer of shares under section 104(1).
Held: The company was an investment company with section 105, and so . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Inland Revenue Commissioners v George and another ChD 27-Feb-2003
The company ran a residential homes park. The users owned the caravans, but the taxpayer owned the land. They claimed exemption on a transfer of shares under section 104(1).
Held: The company was an investment company with section 105, and so . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Inheritance Tax
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188424
