In 1989, the taxpayer transferred property by means of a trust deed in favour of his son in consideration of his ‘natural love and affection’ for him. Four years later the commissioners investigated his tax affairs, and concluded that there were substantial undisclosed business profits. He died in 1997 owing substantial sums, and the commissioners sought to set aside the 1989 deed as being made in order to put his assets beyond reach.
Held: The possible dual purpose of the transaction did not prevent the inference, supported by the facts, that the statutory requirement was satisfied, and the deed was set aside. The execution of a deed transferring his beneficial interest in business premises to his son in consideration of ‘natural love and affection’ was a transaction at an undervalue.
Judges:
Hart J
Citations:
Gazette 25-Oct-2001, Times 02-Nov-2001
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Inland Revenue v Hashmi and Another CA 3-May-2002
The question for the court was whether when there was more than one purpose of a transaction the proscribed purpose under the section had to be dominant or not.
Held: It was not necessary for the proscribed purpose to be the dominant purpose; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency, Land
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.166698
