In Timothy Clayton Hutchings v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 0009 (12 January 2015) the FTT found that a penalty for deliberate inaccuracy in an IHT return had been rightly imposed.
The deceased had a bank account in Switzerland. In March 2009 he instructed his Swiss bank to transfer £443 669 to his son Clayton Hutchings who was also the residual beneficiary of the estate. This was a potentially exempt transfer (PET) subject to IHT if the donor dies within seven years of the transfer (IHTA 1984 s 3A). The donor died seven months later.
When the executors submitted the inheritance tax return it made no mention of the transfer to Mr Hutchings. In July 2011 HMRC received anonymous information about the offshore bank account leading to the assessment of Mr Hutchings. HMRC also informed Mr Hutchings that he 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:
In Timothy Clayton Hutchings v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 0009 (12 January 2015) the FTT found that a penalty for deliberate inaccuracy in an IHT return had been rightly imposed.
The deceased had a bank account in Switzerland. In March 2009 he instructed his Swiss bank to transfer £443 669 to his son Clayton Hutchings who was also the residual beneficiary of the estate. This was a potentially exempt transfer (PET) subject to IHT if the donor dies within seven years of the transfer (IHTA 1984 s 3A). The donor died seven months later.
When the executors submitted the inheritance tax return it made no mention of the transfer to Mr Hutchings. In July 2011 HMRC received anonymous information about the offshore bank account leading to the assessment of Mr Hutchings. HMRC also informed Mr Hutchings that he 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:
