Executors of Cox v Commissioners for HMRC [2020] WTLR 1239
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2020 #181This case was an appeal against a notice of determination issued by HMRC under s221 Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA) which had ruled that the deceased’s furnished holiday lettings business did not qualify for business property relief (BPR). The only dispute was whether the business consisted ‘mainly’ of ‘holding investments’ within the meaning of s105(3) IHTA.
The business began in 1989 with one flat and expanded in 1991 and 1996 with the purchase of further flats in the same building. It continued until the deceased’s death on 27 December 2014.
The tribuna...
Routier & anr v HMRC [2020] WTLR 281
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2020 #178C died in 2007 in Jersey, leaving her residuary estate on trust (the trust) for purposes that were agreed to have been exclusively charitable under English law. C directed in her will that the proper law of the trust was the law of Jersey. The appellants, who were domiciled in Jersey, were appointed to be C’s executors and the trustees of the trust. C’s estate included assets in the United Kingdom amounting to £1.7m. In 2010 the appellants retired as trustees (but not as executors) and were replaced by a UK resident trustee. C’s will was then amended so as to make the proper law of the T...
Foster v HMRC [2020] WTLR 145
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2020 #178Susan Elizabeth Foster (“Deceased”) owned 6.39 acres of agricultural land at Wolverhampton Road, Shifnal, Shropshire (“Site”). In March 2004 she entered into a joint venture agreement (“JVA”) with a developer who already owned adjoining land known as the Uplands just outside the defined development boundary of Shifnal. The site, which was located outside the boundary as defined in the local plan proposals map, was shown as “safeguarded land” (i.e. land removed from the green belt and identified as having the potential to meet future development needs beyond the plan period). The Deceased...
Charnley & anr v HMRC [2020] WTLR 93
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2020 #178Mr Gill’s estate included the house in which he lived, a brick barn and outbuildings and 21 acres of permanent pasture. During the relevant period Mr Gill did not own any livestock. He allowed farmers to graze their livestock on his agricultural land under annual grazing licences. It was not disputed that the house was of a character appropriate to the farm.
HMRC refused agricultural property relief (‘APR’) in respect of the value of the house, barn and outbuildings on the basis that neither the house nor outbuildings were occupied for the purposes of agriculture, and refused the ...
Banks v HMRC [2020] WTLR 19
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2020 #178The appellant taxpayer, Arron Banks, appealed against a notice of determination issued by HMRC. This notice assessed Mr Banks as owing inheritance tax of £162,945.34 on donations of £976,781.38 that he and companies that he controlled made to the UK Independence Party (UKIP) between October 2014 and March 2015 (the donations).
It was common ground that no UKIP MPs were elected at the 2010 UK General Election. UKIP did not therefore meet the statutory definition under s24(2) IHTA 1984 and so the Donations were not treated as exempt from VAT. The appellant argued that this ...
PBC v JMA & ors [2019] WTLR 1193
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2019 #177This was an application by the applicant, PBC, the son and attorney under a lasting power of attorney of the patient, JMA, to authorise various gifts exceeding £7m in value. The purpose of the gifts was to achieve a reduction in inheritance tax (IHT) liability. JMA‘s total assets were estimated to be worth around £18,650,000, held in the form of investments and five paintings.
JMA was 72 years old, suffered from early onset dementia, and required full time care. She was unable to converse and did not recognise PBC or her care staff. It was agreed (and found) that she did not have ...
Rogge & anr v Rogge & ors [2019] WTLR 1305
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2019 #177The first and second claimants had four children, three of whom were the defendants. The third defendant suffered a serious brain injury while playing polo and was left unable to walk unaided. The first and second claimants purchased two contiguous flats in London, one for themselves and the other for the third defendant. They also sought a house in the countryside which would serve both as a retirement home for themselves and as a place for their children and potential future grandchildren to visit, with an area designed to meet the needs of the third defendant. In February 2011 they id...
Kersner v HMRC [2019] WTLR 895
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2019 #176On an appeal against HMRC’s determination of liability to inheritance tax the appellant made a number of applications in the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), including an application to opt out of the complex track costs regime, and for disclosure of documents alleged to be relevant to the HMRC’s assessment that the appellant had not been domiciled in the UK, but in Israel, when shares had been transferred to her by her husband. The appellant contended that she was UK domiciled at the time of the gift and that the spousal exemption applied.
The tribunal wrote to the appellant on...
LCN v KF & ors [2019] WTLR 633
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2019 #175CJF was a thirteen year old boy who suffered very serious neurological damage at birth. He was initially cared for by his mother, KJF, but she had also suffered complications as a result of CJF’s birth, so he ended up being cared for by a foster parent, LR under a Special Guardianship order. LR passed away in 2013, and the Special Guardianship order was transferred to LR’s daughter, EH, and her husband, AH. CJF’s father, BJF, had denied his paternity, was not named on his birth certificate, and had played no role in CJF’s life.
Before she died, LR brought a claim against the NHS T...
HMRC v Parry & ors [2019] WTLR 45
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2019 #174Shortly before her death the director of a company (S) transferred the funds from a company pension policy acquired by her on her divorce from her ex-husband and known as a s32 buyout policy (the s32 policy) to a personal pension policy (PPP) issued by AXA. At the same time S nominated her two sons as her beneficiaries in relation to the death benefit payable under the PPP. If the s32 pension had remained in the company scheme, on her death a sum would have been payable to S’s estate which would have been chargeable to IHT. S’s sons were the residuary beneficia...