The Executors of Keith Denis Lewis Beresford (Deceased) v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 24 October 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 952 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether Ninecourt Limited’s business of operating serviced office space at 16 High Holborn was “wholly or mainly” the making or holding of investments for IHT Business Property Relief (BPR) purposes. The Tribunal found that the facility fee charged for occupation (despite ancillary services provided by Orega under an agency/management arrangement) was income from making or holding investments and, viewed in the round, Ninecourt’s business was mainly investment‑holding. The executors’ appeal was dismissed and BPR was denied.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The Tribunal applied s.105(3) IHTA 1984 by assessing the business “in the round” and held that active management or the provision of ancillary services does not automatically convert an investment business into a trading one; what matters is the nature of the activities and whether identifiable, substantial trading income arises separate from income from occupation. Where the fee charged is principally for occupation (a facility/licence) and services are incidental, the business can remain one of making or holding investments.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment endorsed using the “spectrum” metaphor for land‑based activities with caution, warned that frequency of transactions alone is not determinative of trading (distinguishing hotel‑style analogies), and observed that contractual apportionments of receipts do not in themselves change the fundamental nature of the income stream. These observations were treated as explanatory rather than strictly determinative.