Vincent v Revenue & Customs (INHERITANCE TAX - whether the drafting in a will created an interest in possession) [2019] UKFTT 657 (TC) (30 October 2019)

Vincent v Revenue & Customs (INHERITANCE TAX - whether the drafting in a will created an interest in possession) [2019] UKFTT 657 (TC) (30 October 2019)

The will of Mrs Hadden created an interest in possession in the three-eighths share of Hopefield for Mr Thom, as the drafting conferred a right to reside for as long as he desired, subject to paying outgoings, which went beyond a mere permission and constituted a present right of present enjoyment. There was no valid disclaimer by Mr Thom, as his conduct demonstrated acceptance of the interest and the conditions attached.

Citation
[2019] UKFTT 657 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Margaret Vincent; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
30 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal First Tier Tribunal (tax) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Inheritance Tax, Interest in Possession Trusts, Interpretation of Wills, Disclaimer of Interest, Settled Property
Tax Law Wills and Probate Inheritance Tax Interest in Possession Trusts Interpretation of Wills Disclaimer of Interest Settled Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Vincent

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal First Tier Tribunal (tax) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the drafting in a will created an interest in possession in settled property for inheritance tax purposes
  2. 2 Whether the interest in possession was disclaimed by the beneficiary

Ratio Decidendi

The will of Mrs Hadden created an interest in possession in the three-eighths share of Hopefield for Mr Thom, as the drafting conferred a right to reside for as long as he desired, subject to paying outgoings, which went beyond a mere permission and constituted a present right of present enjoyment. There was no valid disclaimer by Mr Thom, as his conduct demonstrated acceptance of the interest and the conditions attached.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.