Lexgreen Services Limited v The Commissioners For HMRC
Decision date: 21 August 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1019 (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 considered whether s 201(1)(d) IHTA, which makes a settlor liable for certain trust charges where a transfer is made "during the life of the settlor", can apply where the settlor is a company and, if so, whether Lexgreen was liable for a ten‑year anniversary charge. The Tribunal held that "during the life of the settlor" can be read to mean "during the period of existence" when the settlor is a corporate body, and that Lexgreen was a live company at the relevant times. Accordingly Lexgreen was liable for the agreed ten‑year charge and the appeal was dismissed.
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 ratio is that where a statutory provision refers to a transfer made "during the life of the settlor" and the term "settlor" includes companies, the phrase can be interpreted to mean the transfer occurred while the corporate settlor was in existence; therefore a company can be treated as having a "life" for the purposes of s 201(1)(d) IHTA and be liable if it was in existence at the relevant time.
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 decision notes (obiter) that a subsequent parliamentary amendment (Finance Act Schedule 13 para 28(6)) clarifies that references to being "alive" or "dying" for corporate settlors should be read as being in existence or ceasing to exist, but that the amendment’s temporal application is limited by para 48. The judgment also flagged practical questions about defining precise start or end points of corporate "life" (such as reinstatement or cessation) that could give rise to future disputes.