Anthony Nixon (Paris Smith) argues that a recent case on IHT business property relief, which went in HMRC’s favour, in fact suggests that the restriction of the relief on ‘mainly investment’ grounds has been applied too widely.
Business relief and the investment restriction
IHTA 1984 s 105 defines what does and what does not qualify for inheritance tax business property relief (defined as ‘relevant business property’). Section 105(3) includes the critical restriction that business assets ‘are not relevant business property if the business ... consists wholly or mainly of ... making or holding investments’.
I advised the executors (behind the scenes) in Graham v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 306 (TC). This remains the only reported case in which taxpayers...
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:
Anthony Nixon (Paris Smith) argues that a recent case on IHT business property relief, which went in HMRC’s favour, in fact suggests that the restriction of the relief on ‘mainly investment’ grounds has been applied too widely.
Business relief and the investment restriction
IHTA 1984 s 105 defines what does and what does not qualify for inheritance tax business property relief (defined as ‘relevant business property’). Section 105(3) includes the critical restriction that business assets ‘are not relevant business property if the business ... consists wholly or mainly of ... making or holding investments’.
I advised the executors (behind the scenes) in Graham v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 306 (TC). This remains the only reported case in which taxpayers...
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:
