International Women’s Day is not just another event in the calendar. Striving for social equality is a daily mission as we work towards building a society of gender equality.
The testatrix, Mrs. Coulter, was domiciled in Jersey and died there. Her estate, at the date of her death, included assets in the United Kingdom with a probate value of £1,818,000.
By her will, Mrs Coulter left her residuary estate, which included the UK assets, on trust for the purpose of constructing homes for elderly residents of a parish in Jersey (the Coulter Trust); or, in default, to assist with the capital expenditure required by an organisation called Jersey Hospice care.
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) determined that the appellants, as executors, were liable for inheritance tax of around £600,000. The appellants appealed on two issues: the first whether the residuary estate of Mrs Coulter was ‘given to charities’ for the purposes of s.23 of the IHTA 1984; and secondly, they advanced an argument that should s.23 be construed in the manner contended by HMRC, as detailed below, this would be an unlawful restriction on the free movement of capital between Member States and third countries and in breach of EU law.
S.23 finds that transfers of value, in this case the residuary estate under Mrs Coulter’s will, are exempt from IHT if the property becomes the property of charities or is held on trust for charitable purposes only. The IHTA 1984 expresses that a ‘charity’ has the same meaning as in the Income Tax Acts, which under s.989 of the Income Tax Act 2007 defines a charity as ‘a body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only’.
The Court relied on Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v IRC  AC 39 in which the House of Lords held that a ‘trust established for charitable purposes only’ contains an implicit limitation. To be eligible for IHT exemption, the trust in question must be governed by the law of some part of the UK and subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the UK.
The Coulter Trust was established under, and governed by, Jersey law. It was therefore not a ‘charity’ for the purposes of the legislation, as s.23 is to be read as requiring the charity to be established in the UK, and therefore, the will did not effect a transfer to ‘a trust established for charitable purposes only’.
This ruling sets out that the legislation cannot be read in a way which allows exemptions from IHT in relation to gifts to non-UK charities.
Donors should therefore be advised of this restriction when choosing the charities they wish to benefit under their will; if they want the benefit of the IHT exemption, the charity they are benefitting must be established under the law of some part of the UK.
This decision does raise questions in relation to gifts to charities of a transnational size, which could be argued to not be domiciled in any one country. It would appear, for now, that gifts to such charities will not be exempt for IHT purposes, even if the donor is domiciled and their assets are based in the UK.
Further questions can be raised in relation to the unlawful restriction of free movement of capital argument and whether Jersey is to be treated as a ‘third country’ for the purposes of EU law. However, neither party provided sufficient evidence to enable the Court to give judgment on this issue.
Both parties have been invited to propose directions for that purpose.
For more information, please contact Alex Elphinston.
Next in our series of ebriefings on the Government’s Green Paper: Transforming public procurement; looking at the Chapter 4 proposal to change the basis of contract awards.
The Academies Financial Handbook is updated annually by the Department for Education and the Education and Skills Funding Agency; it contains a number of governance requirements for academy trusts.
Supreme Court publishes key decision for those working in the UK’s gig economy.
The 'Chocolate Snowman Appeal' is an amazing initiative that Anthony Collins Solicitors' (ACS) employees take part in every year.
The Building Safety Bill (the Bill) is said to be the most significant and wide-ranging change to the regulatory environment for higher risk building (HRBs) for over 45 years.
On 4 November 2020, the Restriction of Public Exit Payments Regulations 2020 (the Regulations) came into force; exit payments for the public sector were capped at £95,000.
The case was brought by the Official Receiver who sought disqualification orders under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986) against the seven trustees of Kids Company and its CEO. It illustrates well the tension between the role of a fulltime paid CEO of a large charity and the role of its board as voluntary trustees/directors.
At the end of 2020, The Charity Governance Code was updated or 'refreshed' as it is termed on its website.
Anthony Collins Solicitors is today (Thursday 11 February) revealing the scale of its social impact during 2020.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.