The Executors of the Estate of Peter John Linington & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 30 January 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 89 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This case concerned whether Peter Linington’s reversionary interest in the Marshall Trust was “excluded property” under s48 IHT and whether its assignment to the Kent Trust constituted a transfer of value under s3 IHT. The tribunal found the reversionary interest was acquired for consideration (when the nomination became irrevocable as part of a single packaged transaction) and thus was not excluded property, and that its assignment to the Kent Trust was a transfer of value whose market worth was effectively the trust fund (with a small discount); the appellants’ appeal was dismissed. Parties were directed to agree or return to the tribunal to quantify amounts.
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: medium
When determining whether a nominated reversionary interest is “acquired” for s48 purposes, a nomination subject to revocation is not treated as acquired until the revocation is removed, and where payment is made as part of a single packaged transaction the consideration can be treated as consideration for the whole package including the reversionary interest. For transfer‑of‑value valuation under s3, the open‑market value must be applied to the specific interest transferred; rights that are commercially unsaleable in isolation may have nil value, while a package of complementary rights can have a value approximating the underlying trust assets (subject to discounts for enforceability/timing/costs).
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: low
The judgment departs from an earlier Tribunal decision (Salinger) on the transfer‑of‑value point and remarks on potential wider consequences if discretionary or nominated interests were treated as estate property; it also comments that the 2012 statutory targeted charge does not mean pre‑2012 arrangements necessarily avoided IHT, though it does not decide those broader issues.