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 could not claim the benefit of the section 104 exemption. It produced a profitable return on the exploitation of proprietorial rights. That in turn required a finding that the business constituted holding an investment, and services were ancillary to that.
Judges:
Laddie J
Citations:
Times 18-Mar-2003, Gazette 01-May-2003, [2003] STC 468
Statutes:
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 105 104
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Weston 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 . .
Appealed to – George and Loochin ( Executors of Stedman, Deceased) v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 5-Dec-2003
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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – George and Loochin ( Executors of Stedman, Deceased) v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 5-Dec-2003
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Inheritance Tax
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180953