Court of Appeal rejects Arron Banks' inheritance tax appeal | Devereux Chambers

Court of Appeal rejects Arron Banks' inheritance tax appeal | Devereux Chambers: Court%20of%20Appeal%20rejects%20Arron%20Banks%u2019%20inheritance%20tax%20appeal%0AThe%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20has%20dismissed%20the%20appeal%20of%20Arron%20Banks%20against%20a%20decision%20of%20the%20Upper%20Tribunal%20which%20upheld%20an%20assessment%20to%20inheritance%20tax%20%28IHT%29.%20Mr%20Banks%20made%20donations%20to%20UKIP%20in%202014%20and%202015%20totalling%20around%20%A31m%2C%20sourced%20from%20his%20personal%20funds%20and%20through%20a%20company%20that%20he%20controlled.%20It%20was%20common%20ground%20that%20the%20donations%20would%20be%20subject%20to%20the%20IHT%20charge%20unless%20they%20came%20within%20the%20exemption%20for%20donations%20to%20political%20parties%20%28s.24%20IHTA%201984%29.%20At%20the%20relevant%20time%2C%20donations%20to%20UKIP%20did%20not%20qualify%20for%20the%20exemption%20because%20UKIP%20did%20not%20have%20an%20MP%20who%20had%20been%20elected%20in%20the%20previous%20general%20election.%0A%0ARelying%20on%20rights%20conferred%20on%20him%20by%20the%20European%20Convention%20of%20Human%20Rights%20%28ECHR%29%20and%20the%20law%20of%20the%20European%20Union%2C%20Mr%20Banks%20claimed%20to%20be%20entitled%20to%20the%20exemption%20anyway.%A0The%20EU%20law%20arguments%20had%20been%20rejected%20by%20the%20FTT%20and%20Upper%20Tribunal%20and%20were%20not%20pursued%20in%20the%20Court%20of%20Appeal.%0A%0AAt%20first%20instance%2C%20the%20FTT%20had%20found%20that%2C%20in%20breach%20of%20Article%2014%20ECHR%20taken%20with%20Article%201%20Protocol%201%2C%20the%20s.24%20criteria%20indirectly%20discriminated%20against%20Mr%20Banks%20because%20of%20his%20political%20opinion%2C%20and%20that%20the%20discrimination%20could%20not%20be%20justified.%20However%2C%20it%20concluded%20that%20it%20was%20not%20possible%20to%20interpret%20the%20legislation%20so%20as%20to%20avoid%20the%20discrimination%20and%20dismissed%20the%20appeal.%0A%0AMr%20Banks%20appealed%20to%20the%20Upper%20Tribunal.%20Challenging%20the%20FTT%u2019s%20conclusions%20by%20Respondents%u2019%20Notice%2C%20HMRC%20contended%20that%20there%20was%20no%20discrimination%20and%20that%20in%20any%20event%20any%20difference%20in%20treatment%20was%20justified.%20The%20Upper%20Tribunal%20%28Falk%20J%20and%20UT%20Judge%20Herrington%29%20agreed%20with%20HMRC%20on%20all%20points.%20That%20decision%20was%20challenged%20on%20appeal%20to%20the%20Court%20of%20Appeal.%0A%0AHenderson%20LJ%20%28with%20whom%20the%20Chancellor%20and%20Nicola%20Davies%20LJ%20agreed%29%20found%20that%20the%20Upper%20Tribunal%20had%20been%20right%20to%20conclude%20that%20the%20legislation%20did%20not%20discriminate%20against%20Mr%20Banks%20because%20of%20his%20political%20opinion%2C%20either%20directly%20or%20indirectly.%20Following%20recent%20authority%20that%20suggests%20a%20liberal%20approach%20to%20%u2018other%20status%u2019%20for%20the%20purposes%20of%20Article%2014%2C%20the%20Court%20found%20that%20Mr%20Banks%20did%20have%20a%20status%20of%20%u201Csupporting%20a%20party%20that%20did%20not%20have%20any%20MPs%20elected%20to%20the%20House%20of%20Commons%20following%20the%202010%20general%20election%u201D%20and%20that%20s.%2024%20did%20discriminate%20against%20him%20on%20the%20basis%20of%20that%20status.%20However%2C%20it%20found%20that%20the%20difference%20in%20treatment%20was%20justified%20and%20that%20there%20was%20accordingly%20no%20breach%20of%20Article%2014.%20%A0%0A%0AHenderson%20LJ%u2019s%20discussion%20of%20the%20justification%20issue%20is%20a%20valuable%20explanation%20and%20application%20in%20the%20tax%20context%20of%20the%20recent%20unanimous%20decision%20of%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20in%20R%20%28SC%29%20v%20Secretary%20of%20State%20for%20Work%20and%20Pensions%20and%20others%20%5B2021%5D%20UKSC%2026.%0A%0AA%20copy%20of%20the%20judgment%20can%20be%20found%20here.%A0