Butler & ors v Commissioners for HMRC [2024] WTLR 23
Spring 2024 #194The deceased died on 15 May 2015. At her death she was a member of Tufton Warren Farm LLP. The other member was the trustees of her late husband’s will trust in which she had a life interest, which was treated as part of her estate for IHT purposes under s49(1) Inheritance Tax Act 1984. The LLP owned and ran a wedding venue location. Business property relief was claimed. HMRC issued notices of determination which stated no part of the LLP’s assets was relevant business property for the purposes of s104 Inheritance Tax Act 1984. A statutory review of the determinations l...
Shah v Commissioners for HMRC [2024] WTLR 265
Spring 2024 #194The executor of the estate of the deceased appealed against a notice of determination under s221 Inheritance Tax Act 1984 that the deceased was domiciled in England and Wales at the time of his death.
The deceased was born in Karachi in what was then British India in 1929. He attended school and university in Karachi in the 1940s. Following partition, in 1947 he moved from Karachi, Pakistan to Gujarat, India to complete his university course. On completion, he moved to Tanzania. In 1954 he moved to the UK to undertake a further degree, returning to Tanzania on completion ...
Pride v Commissioners for HMRC [2023] WTLR 1109
Autumn 2023 #192The appeal was brought by Mr Pride in his capacity as executor of the estate of Geraldine Jill Price (deceased) (Mrs Pride) against notices of determination issued by HMRC on 18 October 2018. Immediately before her death Mrs Pride was the principal beneficiary of a family trust established on 10 October 2002 (the property trust). Immediately prior to Mrs Pride’s death the property trust:
- (1) held a property in Poole (the flat), which was leased to an unrelated party;
- (2) was the provider of an indemnity to St James’ Place Corporate Nominee Ltd (the nominee), which h...
Hall & anr v HMRC [2023] WTLR 529
Summer 2023 #191Mrs Raboni, a widow, owned a freehold house in which she resided. As her health worsened, a friend, Mr Boggia, helped her and began to spend nights at the property. On 2 October 2004, Mrs Raboni passed away. Her will provided that her five nieces and nephews were the beneficiaries of her estate and that Mr Boggia was permitted to reside in the property during his lifetime without charge. It was not disputed that Mr Boggia resided in the property after Mrs Raboni’s death. The residuary beneficiaries were advised that there were insufficient funds in the estate to pay IHT unless the proper...
Firth & anr v Commissioners for HMRC [2022] WTLR 1297
Winter 2022 #189The appeal was brought by Mr and Mrs Firth in their capacity as trustees of the L. Batley 1984 Settlement (the trust) against notices of determination issued to the trustees by HMRC on 7 September 2018, which refused Inheritance Tax (IHT) Business Property Relief (BPR) on the grounds that the interest of the trustees in the business carried on by the Lawrance (Hotel Living) Ltd (The Lawrance) consisted mainly in the holding of investments and was therefore not a qualifying business for the purposes of BPR.
On 14 November 1984 Lawrance Batley established the trust. Prior to 2012 th...
Dwan & ors v Commissioners for HMRC [2022] WTLR 501
Summer 2022 #187Five shareholders of Taskcatch plc made gifts of shares in the company to various charities and then claimed tax relief on the basis of the value of such shares at the dates of the gifts. Mr Dwan gifted 500,000 shares on 31 March 2003 and claimed relief on the basis of their value being 32.5p per share. On 31 March 2003, a small trade of shares in Taskcatch plc was registered on AIM at a price of 32.5p per share. Also on 31 March 2003, shares in Taskcatch plc were issued at the implied price of 7p per share to the vendors of a company that was being acquired. On 5 October 2004, Mr and Mr...
Marlborough DP Ltd v Commissioners for HMRC [2021] WTLR 1329
Winter 2021 #185Marlborough DP Ltd (MDPL) operated a dental practice, through which a Dr Thomas, its director and sole shareholder, provided dental services. It had instituted a ‘remuneration trust’ (RT), which it had stated to be for the benefit of persons who had provided or might in the future provide services, custom or products to MDPL. MDPL made ‘contributions’ to the RT which were said to reflect ‘part of the economic cost to [MDPL] of earning its profits’. MDPL then deducted its contributions to the RT as business expenses in computing its profits for accounting purposes, and claimed deductions ...