In HMRC v The personal representatives of the estate of M Vigne[2018] UKUT 357 (31 October 2018) the UT found that business property relief (BPR) (under the Inheritance Tax Act (IHTA) 1984 s 105) applied to a livery business.
The issue was whether the livery business of the late M. Vigne consisted wholly or mainly of making or holding investments so that it was not ‘relevant business property’ for the purpose of BPR. HMRC contended that the FTT had misapplied the statutory test in particular because part of the FTT’s decision did not include references to the ‘wholly and mainly’ test of s 105(3).
The UT found however that the FTT had fully in mind the ‘wholly or mainly’ test referring to the FTT’s final conclusions in which it explicitly addressed the point when finding that...
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:
In HMRC v The personal representatives of the estate of M Vigne[2018] UKUT 357 (31 October 2018) the UT found that business property relief (BPR) (under the Inheritance Tax Act (IHTA) 1984 s 105) applied to a livery business.
The issue was whether the livery business of the late M. Vigne consisted wholly or mainly of making or holding investments so that it was not ‘relevant business property’ for the purpose of BPR. HMRC contended that the FTT had misapplied the statutory test in particular because part of the FTT’s decision did not include references to the ‘wholly and mainly’ test of s 105(3).
The UT found however that the FTT had fully in mind the ‘wholly or mainly’ test referring to the FTT’s final conclusions in which it explicitly addressed the point when finding that...
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:
