David Michael Fryer, Tracey Jane Marsh and Jayne Arnold (Personal Representatives of Patricia Arnold deceased) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 17 February 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 87 (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 case concerned whether Mrs Patricia Arnold's omission to take retirement benefits under an NPI pension plan amounted to a disposition under s 3(3) IHTA 1984, and if so when and how it should be valued. The Tribunal held the continuing omission was a disposition made at the latest time the right could be exercised (the date of death, 30 July 2003), that the omission is to be treated as deliberate unless the personal representatives show otherwise, rejected the s 10 defence, and assessed the value of the right at £89,850; the Notices of Determination were varied accordingly and the executors' appeal 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 decision establishes that a continuing omission under s 3(3) IHTA 1984 is to be treated as made at the latest time the right could have been exercised (here the date of death), and that the statutory proviso "unless it is shown that the omission was not deliberate" places the burden on the disponor/personal representatives to prove non-deliberateness. Valuation of the diminution may be measured by the value of the lost right itself.
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 questioned whether the 1992 Tax Bulletin amounted to concessionary treatment but did not decide the point; it also remarked that, for valuation, one may postulate a hypothetical open market for an unassignable pension right and apply a commercial discount (the judge used a 25% discount in the absence of specific evidence).