Matthew Harrison (Withers) examines the impact of a recent Supreme Court decision.
Omissions are curious things or rather they are curious nothings: ethereal and obscure; they are not unproblematically incorporated into the IHT regime as the decision in HMRC v Parry shows. To understand the issues it is necessary to recount the facts in some detail. Statutory references are to IHTA 1984 and paragraph numbers are to the decision of the Supreme Court.
The facts
As part of her divorce settlement in 2000 Mrs Staveley was entitled to receive a lump sum and an annuity under a deferred annuity contract issued by AXA (‘the policy’). She could elect to draw benefits at any time after her 50th birthday which was in 2000 and if she died without drawing any benefits a lump sum would...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
Matthew Harrison (Withers) examines the impact of a recent Supreme Court decision.
Omissions are curious things or rather they are curious nothings: ethereal and obscure; they are not unproblematically incorporated into the IHT regime as the decision in HMRC v Parry shows. To understand the issues it is necessary to recount the facts in some detail. Statutory references are to IHTA 1984 and paragraph numbers are to the decision of the Supreme Court.
The facts
As part of her divorce settlement in 2000 Mrs Staveley was entitled to receive a lump sum and an annuity under a deferred annuity contract issued by AXA (‘the policy’). She could elect to draw benefits at any time after her 50th birthday which was in 2000 and if she died without drawing any benefits a lump sum would...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
