Business Property Relief: Room for interpretation?

Zahra Kanani outlines Green v HMRC [2015] which upholds the principle that BPR does not apply to furnished holiday lets and clarifies ‘investment’ activities. ‘From the tribunal’s analysis, it was clear that the extra services provided were insufficient to demonstrate that the business is other than “mainly” one of holding the Flagstaff property as an …
This post is only available to members.

The Trustees of David Zetland Settlement v HMRCC [2013] UKFTT 284

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2013 #131

The appellant trustees appealed from a notice of determination dated 16 February 2010 whereby HMRC refused inheritance tax business property relief on the basis that immediately before the ten-year anniversary on 22 September 2007, none of the property comprised in the settlement was relevant business property for the purposes of s104 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA). HMRC contended that the business was excluded under s105(3) IHTA in that it consisted ‘mainly of… making or holding investments’.

The principal asset of the settleme...