Trustees of the Peter Buckley Settlement v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 4 January 2024

Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 29 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 Entrepreneurs' Relief (ER) could be claimed on sale of the single ordinary share in Peter Buckley Clitheroe Ltd when that share was registered in the trustees' names for an interest in possession trust whose life tenant/trustee was Mr Buckley. The Tribunal held the statutory requirement that the qualifying individual hold at least 5% of the ordinary share capital and related voting rights in their personal capacity was not met because the registered share belonged to the trust, not personally to Mr Buckley. HMRC was correct to disallow ER and the trustees' appeal was dismissed; the additional CGT remained payable.

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

For the purposes of ER under the provisions at issue in this case, the qualifying individual must hold the requisite percentage of ordinary share capital and voting rights in their personal capacity; legal title vested in trustees for an interest in possession trust does not satisfy the personal holding requirement.

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 that Parliament's intent supports a literal application of the personal holding requirement and rejected purposive arguments to convert trustee-held shares into personal ownership; it also noted that a trust structure merely resembling a bare trust does not automatically convert trustee legal ownership into personal ownership for tax-relief purposes.