In A Banks v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 617 (15 October 2018) the FTT found that IHTA 1984 s 24 was incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) but dismissed the appeal on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to rewrite the provision.
Mr Banks (and companies he controlled) had made several substantial donations to UKIP (the political party) over the course of 2014 and 2015. It was accepted that the donations constituted ‘transfers of value’ within IHTA 1984 s 3. It was also agreed that the transfers of value made by the companies controlled by Mr Banks could be treated as made by him under s 94.
The issue was whether the donations qualified for exemption from IHT under s 24 (gifts to political parties). This arose because s 24 defines a political party...
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 A Banks v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 617 (15 October 2018) the FTT found that IHTA 1984 s 24 was incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) but dismissed the appeal on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to rewrite the provision.
Mr Banks (and companies he controlled) had made several substantial donations to UKIP (the political party) over the course of 2014 and 2015. It was accepted that the donations constituted ‘transfers of value’ within IHTA 1984 s 3. It was also agreed that the transfers of value made by the companies controlled by Mr Banks could be treated as made by him under s 94.
The issue was whether the donations qualified for exemption from IHT under s 24 (gifts to political parties). This arose because s 24 defines a political party...
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:
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=c9a7a0cc_1)
