You are contacting
James Austen comments on the Supreme Court’s decision in this notable IHT case.
16 October 2019
The Supreme Court today handed down judgment in a rare and important Inheritance Tax (IHT) case which has wide-reaching consequences for taxpayers and charities in the UK, Jersey and worldwide.
The Court allowed the appeal by trustees of a Jersey charitable trust who had claimed IHT relief on a gift of UK property (worth £1.7m) to the Jersey charitable trust. This exempted the charity from a claimed UK IHT charge of nearly £600,000. HMRC had sought to deny charity tax relief, claiming it was only available on gifts to domestic UK charities. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court disagreed, saying that such a restriction on charity tax relief (which dated back to the Dreyfus case in the 1950s) was unlawful as a matter of EU law.
A number of important points arise from the Supreme Court’s decision, including:
The Supreme Court’s decision is relatively brief when compared with the Court of Appeal decisions which it overturned. As such, it raises a number of new questions. Perhaps the most important of these is whether HMRC might seek to justify limiting charity tax relief to jurisdictions with which the UK has in place a treaty on the exchange of tax information. However, given that the Supreme Court’s decision was silent in this regard (meaning that it did not form part of its reasoning) and because it expressly overruled – and criticised – the Court of Appeal for entertaining that question, one may fairly assume that HMRC could not lawfully seek to impose such a restriction.
This decision represents an important victory for taxpayers and charities faced with an intransigent and out-dated refusal by HMRC to give tax relief for charitable gifts to non-UK charities. However, because the Court decided only to deal with the EU law aspects raised by the case, and not to deal with the parallel domestic law points, the longevity of the judgment will of course turn on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations.
A fuller analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision and its implications will follow.
You are contacting