Marshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr: ChD 22 Jan 1992

A payment made from an estate which had been settled overseas by means of a deed of variation was deemed to have been a payment by the settlor, and taxable as such. In interpreting a deeming provision, the court musty consider carefully as between whom and for what purposes the deeming was to take effect.
Mrs K was to be regarded as the settlor because:
(1) the purpose of ss 24(7) and 24(11) Finance Act 1965 was to exclude from computation of gains any difference in value between the date of death and the date of the instrument which would otherwise be thought to accrue a person who made a deed of variation or other disposal by an instrument;
(2) those provisions were fully effective if they meant what they precisely B said but did not carry over into any further considerations of deeming than they provided; and
(3) those provisions disclosed no purpose which would lead to the conclusion that the words had wider and more effective results; in particular r there was no reason why they should be seen to be applicable in answering the question posed by s 42 of the 1965 Act, now ss 80-85 Finance Act 1981, as to whether the settlement was made by a person who was domiciled and resident or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom either at the date of the chargeable gains or at the date of the making of the settlement.
Gazette 22-Jan-1992, [1991] STC 686
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromMarshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr CA 7-Apr-1993
A variation of trusts in Jersey will be deemed to have been made by the deceased – no Capital Gains Tax arising. Interpretation of deeming Provisions. The taxpayer was not a settlor in an overseas trust. Deeming provisions should not generally be . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.83431