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

References: [2010] UKUT 300 (TCC), [2010] BTC 1656, [2010] STI 2427, [2010] WTLR 1545, [2010] STC 2666
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Hodge, Sir Stephen Oliver QC
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.
Statutes: Inheritance Tax 1984 105(1) 105(3) 107
This case cites:

  • Cited – Tootal Broadhurst Lee Co Ltd -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners HL ([1949] 1 All ER 261)
    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, . .
  • Cited – McCall and Another -v- HM Revenue & Customs CANI (Bailii, [2009] NICA 12, [2009] STC 990, [2009] STI 1124, [2009] BTC 8059)
    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. . .
  • Cited – Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Bairstow HL ([1956] AC 14, [1955] 3 All ER 48, [1955] 36 Tax Cas 207, Bailii, [1955] UKHL 3)
    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 . .