This is another case involving a family dispute over the corpse.  In this case it was over the corpse of a Filipino politician and was heard before the High Court of England and Wales.

In coming to its decision the England and Wales High Court placed great emphasis on “… his clearly expressed wishes both demonstrated in evidence and by signed documents.”

The case report can be found here.

Hanson v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 95 (TC) 

The First-tier Tax Tribunal has held that when determining whether a farmhouse qualifies for agricultural property relief (APR) from inheritance tax, the farmhouse and the land to which it is of a “character appropriate” must be in the same occupation, but need not be in the same ownership.

A reminder of where “character appropriate” comes from:

Agricultural property” is defined for APR purposes in section 115(2) of IHTA 1984 as meaning:

• Agricultural land or pasture.
• Woodlands occupied with (but ancillary to) agricultural land or pasture.
• Buildings used in connection with the intensive rearing of livestock or fish, provided the buildings are occupied with (but ancillary to) agricultural land or pasture.
• Farmhouses, cottages and farm buildings, and the land occupied with them (such as garden or grounds), that are of a character appropriate to the property described above.

Some background

Immediately before his death in December 2002 Joseph Charles Hanson was the life tenant of a trust created by his father in 1957.  The trust held a property that both parties in this matter agreed was a “farmhouse” for APR purposes and had an open market value in December 2002 of £450,000.

Mr Hanson’s son lived in the farmhouse which he had occupied since 1978 under a rent free licence. From there the son farmed 215 acres of land of which 128 acres was owned by the son and 25 acres was part owned by Mr Hanson.  The remainder of the 215 acres comprised 20 acres rented by the son from a third party and a further 42 acres whose ownership was unspecified.

The only land in common ownership and common occupation with the farmhouse was the 25 acres part owned by Mr Hanson and farmed by the son.

Following Mr Hanson’s death his executors claimed APR on the value of his interest in the farmhouse.  HMRC denied the relief on the basis that there was insufficient agricultural land in both common ownership and common occupation with the farmhouse for the farmhouse to pass the “character appropriate” test.

The son appealed the decision in his capacity as sole trustee of the trust arguing that common occupation was the only connecting factor required between the farmhouse and the agricultural land to which it was of a character appropriate.  The Tribunal agreed with the son.

This decision may be of significance in situations where a downsizing farmer has moved out of the farmhouse and gives away much of the agricultural land.

This decision is likely to be appealed by HMRC.

The full judgment is available here.

Pawson deceased v HMRC 2012 UKFTT 51 (TC)

The First-tier tax Tribunal has ruled that a property used as a holiday cottage qualifies for inheritance tax business property relief (BPR).

This case has generated a lot of interest as HMRC has delayed a number of similar cases pending the outcome of this one.  It will be interesting to see if HMRC decide to appeal this decision.

For those interested in how the legal teams interacted prior to the hearing I refer you to paragraphs 3 to 9 of the decision.  Fascinating.

HMRC questioned:

(1)  whether the property in question qualified to be treated as “relevant business property” and (2) was it used in the operation of a business for “gain”.  Section 105 IHTA 1984.

HMRC also argued that:

Even if the use to which the property had been put amounted to the operation of a business in principle, and for gain, it was to be excluded from the term “relevant business property” by reason of section 105(3) IHTA 1984 on the basis that the business consisted wholly or mainly of “holding investments”.

The main findings of the Tribunal were:

1.  The exploitation of the property in question as a holiday cottage amounted to the operation of business.

2.  The business was conducted with a view to gain even though it was not always profitable.

3.  An intelligent businessman would not regard the ownership of a holiday letting property as an investment due to the need to constantly find new occupants and to provide servcies unconnected with and over above those needed for the bare upkeep of the property.

The full judgement is available here.

More information on the closure of the Office of the Public Guardian in Scotland on certain days to deal with the backlog of Powers of Attorney needing processed can be found here.

The Scottish Government is to raise the various limits relating to a claim of prior rights by a surviving spouse or civil partner and also as what constitutes a “small estate”.

These are pragmatic and sensible increases.

The new and previous prior rights limits can be found here.

The new small estate threshold can be found here.

Both changes come into force on 1 February 2012.

Good to see the that the Office of the Public Guardian in Scotland has issued a policy document that is both practical and pragmatic on amendments to a registered power of attorney.   This policy will come into force on 1 January 2012.

“The Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 is silent on whether it is permissible to amend a power of attorney deed once registered. The Public Guardian has taken the view that an amendment sought by a capable granter is permissible. The Amendment Policy constitutes the Public Guardian’s approach to the management of amendments to powers of attorney.

• In short, a minor administrative amendment to a power of attorney document, e.g. a change of name or address, which requires no capacity test, will be free of charge.
• Any amendment which requires proof of continuing capacity i.e. because there is a change requested to the primacy of the deed, will incur a fee of £70.”

The policy document can be found here.

HMRC v Atkinson 2011

The Upper Tax Tribunal has allowed HM Revenue & Customs’ appeal in the case HMRC v Executors of Atkinson.

The decision allows HMRC to refuse agricultural property relief on a farmhouse because the farmer had gone into in a care home just before his death. The executors were unrepresented at the appeal because they could not afford to pay HMRC’s costs if they lost.

The farm was owned by the deceased and let to a farming partnership.  The deceased was a partner in the farming partnership and lived in a bungalow situated on the farm until ill-health meant he had to move into a care home.  The deceased still made occasional visits to the bungalow and his possessions remained in it until his death.

HMRC had refused the Executors’ claim for agricultural property relief because they were of the view that the bungalow was not occupied for the purpose of agriculture for the relevant period required by section 117 of IHTA (“Inheritance Tax Act 1984”).   The First Tier Tribunal allowed the Executors’ appeal.

On the basis of the findings of fact the First Tier Tribunal concluded that, for the purposes of the IHTA, the partnership was in occupation of the bungalow up to the date of Mr Atkinson’s death and that such occupation “was for the purposes of agriculture in the relevant sense because the bungalow was still used to accommodate the diminishing requirements of the senior partner”.

Section 117 (b): “… section 116 above does not apply to any agricultural property unless –

(a)    It was occupied by the transferor for the purposes of agriculture throughout the period of two years with the death of the transferor, or

(b)   It was owned by him throughout the period of seven years ending with that date and was throughout that period occupied (by him or another) for the purposes of agriculture.”

Section 116 grants relief for agricultural property.

Note. There is no definition of the word “occupied” nor is any special given to the words “for the purposes of agriculture”.

The question for the Upper Tribunal was whether the First Tier Tribunal made an error of law when they arrived at a decision of fact which no tribunal properly directed could properly have reached.

The Upper Tribunal found that the First Tier Tribunal did make an error in law.

“Were the matter for us, we would have no hesitation in concluding that the partnership ceased to occupy the bungalow for the purposes of agriculture when Mr Atkinson moved to the care home with no reasonable prospect of ever returning home.”

“In our judgment, the [First Tier] Tribunal failed to apply the correct approach and ask the correct questions.  The correct approach is to identify what does and what does not amount to a sufficient connection between the use and occupation of the property in questions (the bungalow in the present case) and the agricultural activities being carried on on the agricultural property (the farm in the present case); and to ask whether the facts give rise to a sufficient connection.”

“If the [First Tier] Tribunal had adopted such an approach it could, in our judgment, have come to only one conclusion, namely that the bungalow was not immediately before Mr Atkinson’s death, occupied for the purposes of agriculture and had not been since, at latest, it had become apparent that he would never be able to return there to live.  In particular neither the occasional attendance of Margaret [his daughter-in-law] and Gary [his grandson] at the bungalow to deal with post or frost, nor the fact that some of Mr Atkinson’s belongings and furniture remained at the bungalow, can be said to constitute occupation for the purposes of agriculture throughout the seven years prior to Mr Atkinson’s death.”

The full report of the Upper Tribunal can be found here.

This is the text of my speech to this morning’s Scotland Bill conference.

Good morning.

I recently resigned as a trustee of Reform Scotland.  Pressure of work and joining the board of the Borders Chamber of Commerce were the main reasons.  I did though also want a break from this debate.

That though has allowed me to take a step back.  What I have noticed is how quickly the debate is now moving.  The term “devo max” is suddenly everywhere.  The debate is not now confined to Scotland.  It has taken a while but London is now taking a real interest.  Then there is Eurozone crisis and the debate over how much fiscal union is needed where you have monetary union.  The analogy between the UK’s relationship with the EU and Scotland’s relationship with the UK is an obvious one.

Back to the small matter of the Scotland Bill.  My interest starts with the fact that I am a lawyer.  I want to know about the legislation.  I want to know how and by whom the tax will be collected.  Is someone asking for a right to vary a tax or to have complete control of a tax.  What about the underlying and connected legislation.  These questions should remind us how complicated devolving powers can be.

I will cover four points today.

1. The Scotland Bill is Calman minus;
2. learning from experience and is “HMRC fit for purpose”;
3. institutions as a missing element of the debate; and finally
4. there was a better option.

The Scotland Bill is Calman minus.

People forget that the interim Calman report recommended almost no fiscal or tax powers.   The final report contained a small number including the controversial income tax proposal.  The Scotland Bill is meant to be based on the Calman report but what happened to air passenger duty and aggregates levy?

Air passenger duty was not included as it seems to be under constant review; however, the UK Government has indicated that parts of air passenger duty may be devolved to Northern Ireland.

Aggregates levy was not included because of an action raised in the European Courts by a trade body.

We have been told that these minor taxes might be included at a future date.  There is no reason for a delay.  The Scottish element of these taxes should simply be carved out of the relevant UK legislation.  Then leave it up to the Scottish Parliament to decide what to do next.

In addition Calman recommended that 50% of income tax on savings and distributions was to have been assigned to the Scottish Parliament.   Why 50%?  As with the income tax proposal no-one can give any justification for that figure.  This power has been dropped from the Scotland Bill completely.

Then there is the debate over adding additional tax powers to the Scotland Bill.

The previous Scotland Bill committee said that some powers over corporation tax should be included if Northern Ireland is granted any such powers.  Up until recently it looked as if Northern Ireland would soon be getting this power.

The Scottish Government have also produced papers on adding corporation tax, alcohol duty and control over the Crown Estate to the Scotland Bill.

I think it is fair to say that none of these suggested additions have been taken up enthusiastically by the Scottish Secretary.

Some powers might actually be re-reserved such as parts of insolvency and charity law.  The Scottish Parliament is at fault on insolvency by not updating the law.

Instead of arguing about re-reserving part of our charity law why was it not agreed that when OSCR registers a charity it automatically becomes entitled to the various charity tax reliefs.  Presently you also have to make an application to HMRC.  There is a lot of talk about tax simplification.  This was an obvious opportunity missed.

So which tax powers are we left with?

Two minor taxes, SDLT and landfill tax, and an income tax proposal that some commentators think is unworkable.   I will leave it to the accountants and economists to argue back and forth on that one.  That said, as a lawyer I would not start this process with income tax unless you devolve the tax in its entirety.  Only VAT is more complicated.    The longer I have been involved in this debate the less inclined I am to argue for a tax to be shared between parliaments.

The other problem is an eggs and baskets one.   Income tax is just one economic lever albeit a major one.  We have seen what has happened to income tax receipts during the current economic crisis.

Also a right to vary a tax is not much of a power on its own.  What about the underlying law that allows you to create reliefs or vary the tax base. What about connected legislation that affects the tax legislation.  For example for income tax: the tax residency rules or employment legislation.

To change tack for a minute.  What do I like about the Scotland Bill?  The borrowing powers provisions have been improved.   The way the two minor taxes are being devolved makes sense.  They are being carved out of the UK legislation and the Scottish Government are to draft a new Scottish act.  One word of warning on the drafting.  Who is drafting this legislation? What experience do they have in drafting tax law?

I also like the fact that the Scottish Parliament will be able to create new taxes albeit with Treasury approval.

Moving quickly on.  I always think it is a good idea to see how things have been done in the recent past.  What can we learn?  Given the importance of HMRC to this process I also want to discuss whether HMRC is presently fit for purpose.

I will start with HMRC.   I do have quite a bit of sympathy for them just now.  Can you imagine them being told: “I know we are cutting job numbers and your budget.  I know we are already asking you to do a number of new things but can you also deal with the Scotland Bill.”  You can see why HMRC do not treat this matter with much if any enthusiasm.

Is HMRC fit for purpose?  The House of Commons Treasury select committee thinks not.   A further £1.6bn is to be cut from its budget over the next four years.  10,000 more job losses.  Offices are to close.  This is in addition to the cut of approximately 30% in staff numbers and budget since 2004.  I will not even attempt today to answer the question of whether the UK tax system is fit for purpose.

It is though not just staff numbers and budget.   The centralisation of the administration of various taxes is causing problems for us in Scotland.  Two examples.  Birmingham for SDLT.  Nottingham for inheritance tax.

Why is this important?  UK tax law applies English & Welsh legal principles.  Property law and succession law are governed by Scots law.  These can conflict.  In addition, as these taxes are now primarily dealt with in England the amount of Scottish expertise has declined.   One example.  The guidance for SDLT in Scotland had to be written by a sub-committee of the Law Society of Scotland’s tax committee.

Then there is the news that as part of the HMRC cutbacks the Edinburgh Stamp Office is under threat of closure again.  The Trusts and Estates office in Edinburgh is being run down.   I have not heard one Scottish politician ask questions about this.

Now three examples of why I am not confident that this will be done be well.

Remember also that these examples are from a time when HMRC was better staffed and resourced.  Also it is not just HMRC that needs to do better.  The Scottish Government also needs to raise its game.

It has been well documented as to how much of a shambles the introduction of SDLT in Scotland was.   I was at meetings where HMRC openly said they did not realise that Scotland’s property law was different to English property law.  They also made it clear that they did not have time to change the legislation.  “Don’t worry we will have plenty of time to sort things out later”, they said.  The only reason that SDLT worked in Scotland was due to the goodwill and pragmatism of the Scottish legal community.

Then there was the proposal for a UK wide planning-gain supplement.  This was also pre-recession and the debate was all about how much should developers contribute.   I remember my first meeting with HMRC and Treasury officials about this.  The meeting started well with me saying: “I hope you make a better job of this than you did with SDLT”.

Again the level of knowledge of Scots law and which powers the Scottish Parliament had was not great.  My main argument against a UK planning-gain supplement was a simple one.  This was a matter for the Scottish Parliament as planning and housing are devolved matters.   A point so obvious that they said it had never occurred to them.  Maybe, maybe not!

This debate went on for many months but finally the proposal in Scotland was dropped.

My third example is I suspect the one you are most familiar with.  The Scottish Government’s local income tax proposal.  I remember being asked about this 2007 SNP manifesto commitment.  I made three points:

1. Why do you think HMRC will cooperate and work to your deadlines?
2. What about Council Tax Benefit?  I pointed out that the Treasury have withheld attendance allowance funding since the Scottish Parliament introduced free personal and nursing care.
3. This proposal relied on the yet unused tax varying powers.  Is 3p in the pound adequate I asked? Is there even a list of Scottish taxpayers?

I was not surprised when the Scottish Government dropped, possibly temporarily, this proposal.

Ironically this proposal will be soon be possible as under the Scotland Bill the tax varying powers are increased and Council Tax benefit powers are likely to be devolved in 2013.   Whether HMRC would cooperate is of course another matter entirely.

Now to institutions.

The Scottish Parliament is going to need an Exchequer.  An Exchequer that ideally combines the functions presently undertaken by HMRC and the Treasury.   Even under the limited powers contained in the Scotland Bill the Scottish Government will need an Exchequer not just a finance department.  Hopefully the Scottish Government is already thinking about this.

Does Scotland need a separate Stamp Office, Registers of Scotland, Trusts and Estates Office and Companies House?  Of course not.  Why not create a one stop shop to combine these and other government tax, legal and registration services.   By doing this we could also have sub-offices.  Just as London is not the UK Edinburgh is not Scotland.  Remember some benefit powers are already to be devolved in 2013.  Why not create a tax and benefits office?

As far as institutions go we pretty much have a blank sheet of paper.  Let’s not waste this once in a lifetime opportunity.

A few final points.

It is all very well for me to criticise the Scotland Bill.  Do I have or rather had I a better option?  Yes I think I did.

When I started looking at the fiscal powers question my starting point was to look at which powers were already devolved.  The starting point for the Calman Commission was very different and much has already been written about that.

The imbalance in the powers of the Scottish Parliament is obvious.  The Scottish Parliament is responsible for 60% of government spending in Scotland but only has control over 7% of all tax raised in Scotland.  That is the starting point for the debate on financial accountability.

The Scottish Parliament had very few economic levers.  It only has two local taxes out of over 20 taxes and duties.

The lack of tax and fiscal powers also affects policy making.  For example the recent debate on alcohol minimum pricing.  I am sure the Scottish Government would prefer to use alcohol duty if it had the power to do so.

So what to do?

Instead of spending so much time trying to devolve income tax I would have firstly devolved the taxes and duties that are closely connected with already devolved areas of responsibility.

Some examples.

• Property law is devolved but SDLT and the property parts of capital gains tax are not.
• Succession law is devolved but inheritance tax is not.
• Environmental law is devolved but the environmental taxes are not.
• Health is devolved but alcohol and tobacco duties are not.
• Transport is devolved but transport related taxes are not.

This increases the number of economic levers and would greatly help with joined up policy development.   Almost all of the miscellaneous taxes could be devolved under this option.

I would also give the Scottish Parliament the power to decide which of, and when the miscellaneous taxes and duties are devolved.

The other advantage less commented upon is how this would simplify the taxation system of the rest of the UK as less specific “Scottish” guidance would be required.

The point of how small a percentage of revenue the Scottish Parliament raises is though not resolved.  The Scotland Bill takes us to about a third.  Devolving the majority of the minor taxes takes us to about a quarter.

Only be devolving one or more of the big “5” can this be dealt with.  VAT cannot be devolved.   National Insurance is very closely linked with benefits which is still primarily a UK matter.

That leaves corporation tax, North Sea revenue and income tax.  On balance I would go for corporation tax and North Sea revenue as income tax is so closely linked with national insurance.

On timing I also think that the miscellaneous taxes and duties could be devolved relatively quickly.    The Scottish Parliament could also agree that for a period of up to two years to not change any tax that is devolved.  That would provide a degree of certainty.

Also why does the Scotland Bill not make provision for a tax exemption for our Commonwealth Games and as is already in place for next year’s London Olympics.   Or deal with the fossil fuel levy issue.

Last point.  The Scottish Government should deal directly with the UK Government and in particular HMRC and the Treasury.   The Scotland Office is simply a further complication.

Although this is complicated it is also a great opportunity.  Is the opportunity still there?  I am not sure.  But we would not be Scottish if we did not try to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat right at the last moment.

Thank you.

Our Private Client Bulletin for October can be found here.

If you have any questions or would like to sign up for a free trial of our bulletins please email me here.

HMRC has published an updated Inheritance Tax Toolkit effective for deaths occurring from 6 April 2010. Updates include emphasising the importance of providing HMRC with a copy of the will and any codicils when submitting the form IHT400.

These toolkits provide guidance on areas of error that HMRC frequently see in returns and set out the steps that you can take to reduce those errors.

The toolkits can be found here.