SCIT INHERITANCE TAX – Deed of Variation – variation purporting to take effect as a gift by the deceased before death – whether within s 142 IHTA 1984 and an exempt transfer under s 17 – no – Revenue determination that nil rate band to be set against value of ‘gifted’ property based on variation taking effect – variation of no effect because conditional on intended tax effect – determination accordingly quashed.

Citations:

[2007] UKSPC SPC00631

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 142

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262389

Beneficiaries’ gift of excess income was a settled intention and the gifts were exempt from Inheritance Tax.

Citations:

Ind Summary 13-Feb-1995

Statutes:

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 21()

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.78336

The taxpayer was a member of Lloyds. He had to obtain a guarantee of his liabilities from his bank, who in turn took a charge over a freehold reversion which he owned. It was claimed that having been given in charge for business purposes, the taxpayer could take advantage of business property relief for Inheritance tax purposes. This was not correct. The use of the asset to support a guarantee did not of itself make the asset one used for business purposes.

Citations:

Times 30-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 105(1) (a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.82351

Lady Ingram had first conveyed properties to her solicitor who on the next day let the properties back to her, and on the day after conveyed the freehold of the properties to her family.
Held: The leases in favour of Lady Ingram, having been granted by a nominee to his principal, were a nullity. However, this did not mean that the leasehold interest which Lady Ingram admittedly acquired against the trustees was a benefit reserved. There had been no point of time at which the trustees and beneficiaries had held the property otherwise than subject to the leasehold interests. Lady Ingram never intended to give them the property free from those interests and they were not therefore included in the gift. The freehold interests in the property were subject to an equitable interest in Lady Ingram equivalent to that which she would have taken had the leases been valid, enjoyed to the entire exclusion of Lady Ingram and of any benefit to her by contract or otherwise. S102 had no application. ‘It appears to me that, whether Lady Ingram took her leasehold interests in equity or by the operation of section 65 of the Law of Property Act, what the trustees and the beneficiaries under the declarations of trust have finished up with is the property subject to those leasehold interests. Unless it can be said that there was a period or point of time at which the trustees and beneficiaries had a more extensive interest out of which the leasehold interests were carved, the subject matter of the gift made by Lady Ingram was the property shorn of those leasehold interests. In deciding whether or not this could be said two things appear to me to be of cardinal importance. First Lady Ingram never intended to give the property to the trustees and beneficiaries free from the leasehold interests which it is common ground that she had. Secondly the creation and existence of these leasehold interests was not in any way dependent upon the concurrence of the trustees and beneficiaries, still less upon the performance by them of some positive act. In terms of substance, Lady Ingram had her leasehold interests from the very same moment that the trustees and beneficiaries had the property subject to those interests.’

Judges:

Ferris J

Citations:

Times 23-May-1995, Gazette 14-Jun-1995, Ind Summary 05-Jun-1995, [1995] 4 All ER 334

Statutes:

Finance Act 1986 102, Inheritance Tax Act 1984 102(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners IHCS 1990
It was not possible in Scottish law for a man to grant a lease to a nominee for himself: (Lord Hope) ‘I have, as I have said, no difficulty in the concept by which the title to property and the beneficial interest are separated, the title being held . .
Cited – Rye v Rye HL 1962
Two brothers were in partneship in unequal shares, but acquired a property for use by the business which they held in equal shares. They agreed a parol yearly tenancy between themselves as owners and as partners. After one died his son took over his . .
Cited – St Aubyn v Attorney General HL 12-Jul-1951
The donor exercised powers of appointment ‘to make some part of the settled property his own’, and it was ‘wholly irrelevant that by a contemporaneous or later transaction he surrenders his life interest in other parts of it’. The different parts of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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: . .
At First Instance – Ingram and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 10-Dec-1998
To protect her estate from Inheritance Tax, the deceased gave land to her solicitor, but then took back a lease. The solicitor then conveyed the land on freehold on to members of her family.
Held: The lease-back by the nominee was not void as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.82331

SCIT INHERITANCE TAX -Exempt transfers and relief – Business property – Relevant business property – Shares held by Deceased in two companies – Whether the business carried on by the companies was excluded from business property relief as consisting wholly or mainly of one or more of dealing in securities, stocks or shares, land or buildings or making or holding investments – Whether the relevant companies were, with one or more other companies members of a group – Whether the business of the company or either of them was carried on otherwise than for gain – Inheritance Tax Act 1984 Sections 103, 104, 105, 111 and 112.

Citations:

[1999] UKSC SPC00223

Links:

Bailii

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195347

ECJ Judgment – Interpretation of Articles 48 and 52 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC), Article 67 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 67 of the EC Treaty, repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam), Articles 6 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 18 EC) – Directives 88/361/EEC and 90/364/EEC – Inheritance tax – Requirement of cross-border economic activity – Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of Member State of residence.

Citations:

C-364/01, [2003] EUECJ C-364/01

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189880

Whether purchase of three annuities at same time as issue of life policies should be treated as transfer of value of Inheritance Tax purposes.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2304 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.259888

Tax – Inheritance Tax – valuation under s.160 Inheritance Tax Act 1984 – terraced house – analysis of comparable sales – valuation determined at pounds 260,000

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 113 (LC)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 160

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.608669

Mr Brown, the deceased, had owned a site on which was built a substantial farmhouse, with six bedrooms, and various outbuildings. The site formed part of a farm and the issue was whether the site was ‘agricultural land or pasture’ within the meaning of section 115(2).
Held: A site with farm buildings only is not within the definition of agricultural land in the section. Such buildings had to be proportionate in size and nature to the requirements of the farming activities: ‘If cottages, farm buildings and farmhouses which are occupied and used for the purposes of agriculture fall within the meaning of agricultural land it is difficult to see what the point is of the ‘character appropriate’ requirement in limb (3). If, however, cottages, farm buildings and farmhouses, together with any land occupied with them, are not within the expression ‘agricultural land or pasture’ but will constitute ‘agricultural property’ if used in connection with agricultural land or pasture provided that they are of a character appropriate to such agricultural land or pasture (that is, are proportionate in size and nature to the requirements of the farming activities conducted on the agricultural land or pasture in question) then it is possible to attribute a full meaning to that limb.’
‘Agricultural property’ for Inheritance tax purposes was restricted to pasture land which remained undeveloped.

Judges:

Blackburne J

Citations:

Gazette 30-Mar-1994, Times 24-Feb-1994, [1994] STC 295

Statutes:

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 115

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 23-May-1995
The deceased had owned a site of 2.5 acres on which were built a large farmhouse, and other outbuildings.
Held: The court identified the identify the three separate dimensions to the definition of agricultural property under the Act. The . .
Cited – Lloyds TSB Private Banking Plc (personal representative of Rosemary Antrobus deceased) v Inland Revenue (Capital Taxes); Re Cookhill Priory (No 2) LT 10-Oct-2005
LT TAX – Inheritance Tax – agricultural property relief – agricultural value – agricultural property – farmhouses – whether house occupied by ‘lifestyle’ farmer could be farmhouse – held bid of such person could . .
Cited – Lloyds TSB Bank Plc (Antrobus Deceased) v Inland Revenue (No 1) SCIT 17-Oct-2002
SCIT INHERITANCE TAX – agricultural property relief – freehold house which was owned and occupied by the deceased – agreed that it was a farmhouse – whether it was of a character appropriate to the property – yes . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89502

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 that a grant of the fee simple, subject to and with the benefit of a lease back, where such a grant is made by a person who owns the whole freehold free from any lease, is a grant of the whole fee simple with something reserved out of it, and not a gift of a partial interest leaving something in the hands of the grantor which he has not given. It is not like a reversion or remainder expectant on a prior interest. It gives an immediate right to the rent, together with a right to distrain for it, and, if there be a proviso for re-entry, a right to forfeit the lease. Of course, where, as in Munro v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties (N.S.W.) [1934] A.C. 61, the lease, or, as it then may have been, a licence coupled with an interest, arises under a prior independent transaction, no question can arise because the donor then gives all that he has, but where it is a condition of the gift that a lease back shall be created, we think that must, on a true analysis, be a reservation of a benefit out of the gift and not something not given at all.’ Having referred to the gift of the freehold and the material estate duty provisions, and then stated the three problems thereby posed: ‘whether all that was given was the beneficial interest in the estate shorn of the benefit of the rights and interests of the donor under the lease back, in which case, prima facie, the gift must fall outside the statutory provision, or whether the gift was of the whole beneficial interest in the property, in which case it is not disputed that the lease back must have prevented the son from assuming bona fide possession and enjoyment immediately upon the gift to the entire exclusion of the father, and also whether the covenants in the lease are such that in any case the son cannot be said to have assumed such possession and enjoyment to the entire exclusion of any benefit to the father by contract or otherwise within the meaning of the section.’ There were two unanswerable reasons why the case was caught by the statutory provision, i.e. the full repairing covenant on the part of the son and his covenant to pay tithe redemption annuity.

Judges:

Russell and Cairns LJJ and Goff J

Citations:

[1975] 1 WLR 534

Statutes:

Finance Act 1894 2(1)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – In re Nichols, deceased ChD 1974
The father, Lord Nichols, in 1954, decided to make a gift of his family home and the surrounding estate to his son, aged 22. The father was to transfer the estate and the son would immediately lease the bulk of the property back to the father, the . .
Cited – Attorney General v Earl Grey QBD 1898
. .
Cited – Attorney General v Earl Grey CA 2-Jan-1898
The court considered the effectiveness of a gift from father to son for estate duty purposes, where the revenue said that the father had reseved an interest in the land to himself. The conveyance to the defendant donee contained the following . .
Cited – 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 – Re Cochrane 1905
(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 . .
Cited – Munro v Commissioner for Stamp Duties PC 1933
In 1909, the deceased orally agreed with his six children that he and they would carry on the business of graziers on land owned by him as partners under a partnership at will. In 1913 the deceased transferred by way of gift the freehold interest in . .
Cited – Commissioner of Stamp Duties of New South Wales v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd PC 1943
The Board consideerd the application of the retention of benefit rules. Lord Russell of Killowen said: ‘the entire exclusion of the donor from . . enjoyment which is contemplated . . is entire exclusion from . . enjoyment of the beneficial interest . .
Cited – Oakes v Commissioner of Stamp Duties of New South Wales PC 1953
oakes_csdnswPC1954
A father made a gift of land in favour of himself and his four children in equal shares but then retained wide powers of management for which he reserved the right to charge remuneration.
Held: The donor was entirely excluded from the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ingram and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 10-Dec-1998
To protect her estate from Inheritance Tax, the deceased gave land to her solicitor, but then took back a lease. The solicitor then conveyed the land on freehold on to members of her family.
Held: The lease-back by the nominee was not void as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182741

Earlier valuation based on sale not established by contract only; no transfer.

Citations:

Times 17-Mar-1997

Statutes:

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 191

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82588

The Succession Duty Act 1851, sec. 15, enacts-‘Where the title to any succession shall be accelerated by the surrender or extinction of any prior interests, then the duty thereon shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as such duty would have been payable if no such acceleration had taken place.’
An heir of entail in possession of an entailed estate under an entail dated prior to 1848, in 1872 transferred his interest to his son, the next heir, born subsequent to 1848 and not yet twenty-five, for the purpose of certain family arrangements with a view to borrowing money. In 1875, on the son’s attaining twenty-five, the father and son applied for power to disentail, and disentailed. The son continued to possess the estate, and in 1905 the Crown claimed Succession Duty in respect of the succession on the father’s death, which had occurred in 1898.
Held that, under section 15 of the Succession Duty Act 1853, succession duty was exigible.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Robertson, and Lord Collins

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 91, 46 SLR 91

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621530

The Finance Act 1894 by section 9 (5) makes provision that the person required to pay the estate-duty in respect of any property shall have power to raise the amount of such duty by the sale or mortgage of or a terminable charge on the property or any part thereof. Section 9 (6) enacts-‘A person having a limited interest in any property, who pays the estate-duty in respect of that property, shall be entitled to the like charge as if the estate-duty in respect of that property had been raised by means of a mortgage to him.’
Held 1st (approving the judgment of the First Division in Laurie, February 22, 1898, 25 R. 636, 35 S.L.R. 496) that an heir of entail in possession is ‘a person having a limited interest’ in the estate in the sense of the statute; and 2nd ( diss Lord Robertson- rev judgment of the First Division) that the executors of a deceased heir of entail are liable for estate-duty upon instalments of estate-duty paid by him, although no steps had been taken by him to perfect the charge on the estate, the instalments forming by force of the statute, and without any such steps being taken, a charge upon the estate transmissible by him and carried to them.
Opinion (per Lord Dunedin) that the charge upon the entailed estate formed by the instalments of estate-duty paid by the heir of entail in possession could be perfected by his executors by means of adjudication.
Observations on the application to Scotland of an imperial statute conceived in terms inappropriate to Scotland.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lords Macnaghten, Davey, James Of Hereford, Robertson, and Dunedin

Citations:

[1905] UKHL 839, 42 SLR 839

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621188

Section 1 of the Finance Act 1894 enacts that estate duty should be leviable on the principal value of all property, real or personal, settled or not settled, which passes on the death of the deceased.
Section 2, sub-section 1, as amended by section 59 of the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910, enacts-‘Property passing on the death of the deceased shall be deemed to include’ property taken under a disposition purporting to act as an immediate gift inter vivos, unless the disposition was made three years before the death of the disponer.
Section 5, sub-section 1, enacts-When property in respect of which estate duty is leviable is settled by the will of the deceased, or having been settled by some other disposition passes under that disposition on the death of the deceased to some person not competent to dispose of the property (a) a further estate duty called settlement estate duty on the principal value of the settled property shall be levied.
Held that qua section 5 of the Finance Act 1894 the property must ‘pass at the death of the deceased,’ not constructively but actually. Therefore where an immediate life-interest is taken under a settlement, settlement estate duty is not payable under section 5, sub-section 1 (a), upon the death of the settlor within three years of the execution of the deed.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal, 1913, 2 Q.B. 606, affirmed, Lord Dunedin dissenting.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Viscount Haldane), Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, and Parker

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 636, 52 SLR 636

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620710

Revenue – Estate Duty – Foreign Domicile of Deceased – Property Situated in Great Britain

Citations:

[1909] UKHL 593, 47 SLR 593

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1894

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620600

An heir of entail in possession of Scottish heritage carried out disentailing procedure. The heritage was disentailed, the valued interests of the succeeding heirs being charged thereon. This was admittedly done with the object of reducing the total value of the estate for estate duty purposes by the amounts so charged upon the lands. Held (Lords Collins and Shaw of Dunfermline diss.) that the interests charged upon the land were incumbrances created bona fide and wholly for the deceased’s own use and benefit, and that accordingly those amounts fell to be deducted from the deceased’s estate under section 7, sub-section 1 ( a), of the Finance Act 1894.
Per Lord Macnaghten – ‘The incumbrances intended to secure those debts were created bona fide in the only sense in which bona fides can be used in such a connection, that is to say, the debts and incumbrances were not fictitious or colourable, but real and genuine to all intents and purposes. Were these debts and incumbrances incurred and created ‘wholly for the deceased’s own use and benefit?’ . . . It seems to me that the words of the enactment are satisfied if the direct and immediate purpose of the person incurring the debt, or creating the incumbrance, is to make himself master of a sum of money over which he and he alone has power of disposition; and that it was not intended that there should be any inquiry into the ulterior and more remote purposes of the transaction or any investigation into motives.’

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnaghten, Atkinson, Collins, and Shaw

Citations:

[1909] UKHL 570

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620585

Judges:

McCombe, King, Henderson LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1727, [2018] WLR(D) 463

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620481

Inheritance Tax : Business/Agricultural Reliefs

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 632 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592659

Partnership interests in a tenanted freehold estate can be valued together. The court considered the ‘statutory hypothetical sale’ when valuing property for Inheritance Tax purposes: ‘The property must be assumed to have been capable of sale in the open market, even if in fact it was inherently unassignable or held subject to restrictions on sale. The question is what a purchaser in the open market would have paid to enjoy whatever rights attached to the property at the relevant date (see IRC v Crossman [1937] AC 26). Furthermore, the hypothesis must be applied to the property as it actually existed and not to some other property, even if in real life a vendor would have been likely to make some changes or improvements before putting it on the market (see Duke of Buccleuch v IRC [1967] 1 AC 506 at 525). To this extent, but only to this extent, the express terms of the statute may introduce an element of artificiality into the hypothesis. In all other respects, the theme which runs through the authorities is that one assumes that the hypothetical vendor and purchaser did whatever reasonable people buying and selling such property would be likely to have done in real life.

Judges:

Hoffmann LJ

Citations:

Times 24-Feb-1994, [1994] STC 360

Statutes:

Inheritance Taxes Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Crossman HL 1937
For a valuation for estate taxes, the value is what a purchaser in the open market would have paid to enjoy whatever rights attached to the property at the relevant date.
Lord Russell of Killowen said that a share is the interest of a . .
Cited – Duke of Buccleuch v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1967
When a valuation was to be attributed to a property the test must be applied to the property as it actually existed and not to some other property, even if in real life a vendor would have been likely to make some changes or improvements before . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ryde International Plc v London Regional Transport CA 5-Mar-2004
The landowner had developed land which was then made the subject of compulsory purchase. The court was asked how the compensation was to be calculated. The landowner expected to sell the development as a whole. The respondent argued that the profit . .
Cited – Telereal Trillium v Hewitt (Valuation Officer) SC 15-May-2019
The court considered correct approach to determination of the rateable value of an office building, in circumstances where the evidence showed at the relevant time a general demand in the area for comparable office buildings, but no actual tenant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.80993

Judges:

Norris J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3287 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.577838

Inheritance Tax : Gifts – – deceased granted reversionary sub-lease to sons out of her head leasehold interest – licence to sub-let given by head landlord to deceased – sub-lease provided for same covenants, including repairing covenants, as in head lease – whether property disposed of by way of gift was subject to a reservation under s 102 FA 1986 – application of second limb of s 102(1)(b) – identification of donated property – whether benefit ‘trenched upon’ donees’ enjoyment of the donated property – Buzzoni considered

[2016] UKFTT 59 (TC), [2016] SFTD 351, [2016] STI 1159, [2016] WTLR 835
Bailii
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559927

FTTTx INHERITANCE TAX – whether appeal automatically struck out – whether Appellant should be permitted to give oral evidence – Appellant’s lifetime transfers to a settlement – furnished holiday letting business – whether relevant business property – whether business consisted mainly of the making and/or holding of investments – yes – appeal dismissed.

[2015] UKFTT 236 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549504

INHERITANCE TAX – discretionary settlement – 10-year charge – whether the proceeds of sale of scrip dividend shares to which s.249 ICTA 1988 applies are deemed to be income not only for the purposes of ICTA 1988 but also for the purposes of trust law generally and for the purposes of Inheritance Tax

[2014] UKUT 169 (TCC), [2015] CH 183, [2014] WTLR 1209, [2014] WLR(D) 205, [2015] 2 WLR 1, [2014] STC 1713, [2014] BTC 513, [2014] STI 1875, [2014] 4 All ER 943
Bailii
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525881

‘Pre-ordained scheme’ rules, did not apply where a possible participant may not proceed with the transaction.

Gazette 08-Apr-1992
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.80588

FTTTx Inheritance Tax; business property relief; liferent; partnership; replacement property; Inheritance Tax Act 1984 sections 49, 105, 106, 107, 110

J Gordon Reid QC J
[2009] UKFTT 101 (TC), [2009] SFTD 374, [2009] WTLR 1117, [2009] STI 2028, SC/3212/2007
Bailii
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.373640

SCIT Inheritance tax – Death – liability for tax – building society account not notified prior to issue of Clearance – account part of deceased’s estate for inheritance tax purposes – estate distributed by executors before they realised that account part of taxable estate – nature of asset – whether settled property – persons liable for tax attributable to property in account – persons liable for tax attributable to other assets – Inheritance Tax Act 1984 sections 4,5,43(3),200,204 and 211

Powell J
[2009] UKVAT SPC00742, [2009] WTLR 691, [2009] STC (SCD) 386, [2009] STI 1102
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.373756

lau_hmrcSCIT

SCIT INHERITANCE TAX – DISCLAIMER OF BENEFIT – The Appellant was joint executor and residuary beneficiary of her late husband’s estate – The Appellant paid andpound;1 million to her son who had renounced a legacy of andpound;665,000 under the Will of his step father – The Appellant contended that the payment of andpound;1 million was unconnected with her son’s renunciation – the payment was made in fulfilment of an earlier promise to fund her son’s business ventures – evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the renunciation was made in return for payment of the andpound;1 million – renunciation no effect made for consideration in monies – Appeal dismissed – section 142(3) Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

Michael Tildesley
[2009] UKVAT SPC00740
Bailii

Inheritance Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.373755

Failure to take pension benefits – Inheritance Tax

UTTC INHERITANCE TAX – whether transfer of funds to a personal pension plan was a transfer of value – Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s 3(1) and s 10 – whether deceased’s omission to take lifetime pension benefits was to be treated as a disposition and transfer of value – s 3(3) IHTA

Barling J
[2017] UKUT 4 (TCC), [2017] STC 574, [2017] BTC 504
Bailii
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 3(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Parry and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 7-May-2014
INHERITANCE TAX – transfer of funds to personal pension plan while diagnosed with terminal cancer – whether transfer of value – omission to take lifetime benefits – whether disposition and transfer of value – appeal allowed in part . .

Cited by:
Appeal from (UTTC) – Revenue and Customs v Parry and Others CA 16-Oct-2018
Pension Accumulation was taxable
The court was asked whether the pension scheme transfer by the late Mrs R F Staveley, and her omission to take income benefits which were then payable, constituted, or are to be treated as constituting, for the purposes of Inheritance Tax 1984 . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v Parry and Others SC 19-Aug-2020
Whether the pension scheme transfer by the late Mrs Staveley, and her omission to take income benefits which were then payable, constituted, or are to be treated as constituting, for the purposes of the Inheritance Tax 1984 a ‘disposition’ which is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.577810

Whether gift with reservation

FTTTx Inheritance tax – appeal against a notice of determination – permission given to appeal out of time – appeal heard immediately after out of time application – had Deceased reduced the value of her estate some years before she died – if so was there a gift with reservation – no reduction in value of estate – gift with reservation not considered – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 523 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.567978

INHERITANCE TAX – transfer of funds to personal pension plan while diagnosed with terminal cancer – whether transfer of value – omission to take lifetime benefits – whether disposition and transfer of value – appeal allowed in part
[2014] UKFTT 419 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Revenue and Customs v Representatives of Staveley (Deceased) UTTC 10-Jan-2017
Failure to take pension benefits – Inheritance Tax
UTTC INHERITANCE TAX – whether transfer of funds to a personal pension plan was a transfer of value – Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s 3(1) and s 10 – whether deceased’s omission to take lifetime pension benefits was . .
At FTTTx – Revenue and Customs v Parry and Others CA 16-Oct-2018
Pension Accumulation was taxable
The court was asked whether the pension scheme transfer by the late Mrs R F Staveley, and her omission to take income benefits which were then payable, constituted, or are to be treated as constituting, for the purposes of Inheritance Tax 1984 . .
At FTTTx – Revenue and Customs v Parry and Others SC 19-Aug-2020
Whether the pension scheme transfer by the late Mrs Staveley, and her omission to take income benefits which were then payable, constituted, or are to be treated as constituting, for the purposes of the Inheritance Tax 1984 a ‘disposition’ which is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.526859

References: [2013] UKUT 50 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Inheritance tax – business property relief – holiday letting business of a bungalow carried on for profit – whether the business consisted mainly of holding an investment – whether the FTT erred in law in concluding that it did so consist – appeal allowed.

References: [2013] UKUT 224 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Warren J
UTTTC INHERITANCE TAX – deemed transfer on death – deceased’s estate included a farmhouse – whether the farmhouse was agricultural property within section 115(2) Inheritance Tax Act 1984 – nature of the nexus required between a farmhouse and the agricultural land or pasture etc. in the definition – whether such nexus was occupation and ownership or only occupation -held, the nexus is only occupation – Special Commissioner’s decision in Rosser v IRC [2003] STC (SCD) 311 not followed – appeal from Tax Chamber dismissed.

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 . .