(High Court of Ireland) The court considered the effectivenmess of a gift with a reservation to the donor, distinguishing Earl Grey: ‘The limitation of this annuity, although prior to the gift, was, as well as being charged on the land, secured by the personal covenant of the grantee, and this covenant, according to The Attorney-General v Worrall [1895] 1 QB 99, made its subject-matter a reservation of the gift within the meaning of [the statute]; and therefore, even if Lord Halsbury’s words, ‘The settlement itself has reserved andpound;4,000 a year’ mean, as they probably do, ‘reserved out of the gift’ they are in no sense contrary to our present decision. The law made it a reservation out of the gift by reason of the personal covenant.’ Without a covenant to pay it the reservation of a rentcharge is not in itself a benefit reserved out of the property given but is merely property not given. The trust of surplus income and the ultimate contingent trust of corpus were expressly retained by the donor for himself on the face of the instrument, and never in any shape or form included in what he gave.
Judges:
Palles CB
Citations:
[1905] 2 IR 626
Citing:
Appealed to – Re Cochrane CA 1906
(Court of Appeal of Ireland) The court considered the effectivenmess of a gift with a reservation to the donor. As to the Earl Grey case, if ever there was a case to which the statute applied it was The Attorney-General v Grey. The court referred to . .
Distinguished – Grey (Earl) v Attorney General HL 1900
The donor conveyed land to his son by way of gift but reserved an annual rentcharge during his life which was charged on the land conveyed and which his son covenanted to pay (together with the other liabilities of the donor), and retained the right . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Re Cochrane CA 1906
(Court of Appeal of Ireland) The court considered the effectivenmess of a gift with a reservation to the donor. As to the Earl Grey case, if ever there was a case to which the statute applied it was The Attorney-General v Grey. The court referred to . .
Cited – Ingram and Palmer-Tomkinson (Executors of the Estate of Lady Jane Lindsay Morgan Ingram Deceased) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 28-Jul-1997
The deceased had first conveyed property to her solicitor. Leases back were then created in her favour, and then the freeholds were conveyed at her direction to her children and grandchildren. They were potentially exempt transfers.
Held: . .
Cited – In re Nichols, deceased CA 2-Jan-1975
The father, Lord Nichols, gave property to his sons who then leased it back to him. On the father’s death the revenue claimed duty.
Held: Goff LJ: ‘Having thus reviewed the authorities, we return to the question what was given, and we think . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Taxes – Other, Ireland
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.223760