Accuro Trust (Switzerland) SA v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 28 April 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 464 (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 additions made in 2006 to a trust created in 1992 when the settlor was non‑UK‑domiciled lost "excluded property" status for IHT purposes, and whether s 255 IHTA applied to HMRC's denial of repayment. The tribunal held that "the time the settlement was made" in s 48(3) is ordinarily the time the trust was first constituted, so later additions do not defeat excluded property where the trust was originally made by a non‑domiciled settlor, and that s 255 did not apply because HMRC's stated view was not shown to be "generally received or generally adopted in practice." The tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside HMRC's determinations, and ordered repayment of the disputed tax.
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 controlling reasoning is that, for s 48(3) IHTA, a settlement is ordinarily to be treated as constituted from its initial creation under trust law, so the domicile test is assessed at that time; and that s 255 requires a genuinely "generally received" or "generally adopted in practice" view of the law before it can justify an assessment based on that stated view. Additionally, where HMRC relies on s 255 an officer must apply the correct legal test and reasonably investigate whether the stated view meets that threshold.
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 tribunal observed (obiter) that policy considerations or practical anomalies in the IHTA do not justify departing from the statute's natural meaning absent clear legislative language or unavoidable absurdity, and that practitioners' caution in response to HMRC guidance or practical factors (such as entry charges or trustees' record‑keeping) does not by itself satisfy the "generally received/adopted" standard in s 255.