A more recent version of these Inheritance Tax notes – written by Oxford students – is available here.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tax Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Legal requirements o Nonconsensual o No intention to confer value
S1 It is a charge on chargeable transfers s2: chargeable transfer is transfer of value made by individual that is not exempt s3: transfer of value is disposition causing loss to the estate. o loss to estate is measure so catches deliberate sale at undervaluenote consequence of selling controlling share i.e. >50% shares.
It is a chargeable transfer if it is a transfer of value o Calculated by the value of loss to the estate o Specific cases?
Omissions not included in s.3(3) Trransfers not intended to confer gratuitous benefit, not included, s.10 PETs are prima facie chargeable transfers that are potentially exempt (so a subset)
I. Life transfers Transfers on death Fundamental principle
- inheritance tax shall be charged on the value transferred by chargeable transfer, s.1
- What is a chargeable transfer? S.2
* A transfer of value s.3 A) A disposition causing a loss to the value of D's state, s.3(1) IHTA 1984 (1) Disposition (a) Includes omissions, s.3(3) IHTA (i) So for example if D makes a tax free transfer to his son by engaging him to
work for a specified tim and then omits to sue Unless you can show that it was not deliberate, s.3(3) IHTA 1984 (b) DOES NOT include transfers not intended to confer gratuitous benefit, s.10 IHTA 1984 (i) A subjective nondonative intent Executors of Postlethwaite v HMRC (2006) payment made under binding legal obligation would not be intended to have a subjective nondonative intent (ii) And an objective fact (a) A transaction at arms length between two persons not connected to each other, s.10(1)a IHTA 1984 (b) Such that it might be expected to be made so, s.10(1)b IHTA 1984 IRC v SpencerNairn (1991) there was subjective nondonative intent but the property was sold for 94000 below market price because he mistakenly thought he was liable for repairs. It was a connected person. Held that the discrepancy was only one factor which had to be taken into account - arms length vendor shold have actual vendor's reasonable belief (c) Associated operations rule, s.268, IHTA 1984 (i) Affect the same property (ii) One is effected with reference to another and both must be relevant to the scheme MacPherson v IRC (1988) (iii) The charge is deemed to take place at the time of the last of them Loss to value (a) The value of his estate after the disposition is less that it would be but for the disposition, and the amount by which it is less is the value trasnferre D's estate (a) All property to which a person is beneficially entitled
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tax Law Notes.