Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd

Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd
Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd
Court	House of Lords
Citation(s)	[1971] AC 912
Keywords
	Income tax

Last updated May 05, 2024

Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd [1971] AC 912 is a UK tax law case, concerning the ability of the Revenue to amend tax assessments.

This case was the second in a series of decisions involving Tony Vandervell's trusts and his tax liability. The first was Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners ,^[1] which concerned whether an oral instruction to transfer an equitable interest in shares complied with the writing requirement under Law of Property Act 1925, section 53(1)(c), and so whether receipt of dividends was subject to tax.

The third was Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd (No 2) ,^[2] which concerned whether Vandervell could be taxed on dividend income (as beneficiary of a resulting trust) if the exercise of an option had validly transferred the beneficial interest in that income to another trust (of which he was not a beneficiary).

Facts

Lord Diplock also summarised the facts as follows.

My Lords, between July and October 1967 the executors of the late Mr. Vandervell were served with notices of assessment to surtax for the years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 upon dividends which had been paid to the Vandervell Trustees, Ltd. as trustees of a settlement made by Mr. Vandervell in 1949. The assessments were made on the basis that the shares on which the dividends were paid were held by the trustees on a resulting trust in favour of Mr. Vandervell. The executors have given notice of appeal against the assessments.
Section 5 (6) of the Income Tax Management Act 1964 provides that after notice of assessment has been served 'the assessment shall not be altered except in accordance with the express provisions of the Income Tax Acts.' The only way in which an assessment can be altered under the provisions of the Income Tax Acts is by the special commissioners on an appeal to them by the party assessed. The powers of alteration are conferred by section 52 (5) and (6) of the Income Tax Act 1952, as amended by the Income Tax Management Act 1964, and made applicable to surtax assessments by section 229 (4) of the Income Tax Act 1952 . Section 52 (5) and (6) are as follows: *941
'(5) If, on an appeal, it appears to the majority of the commissioners present at the hearing, by examination of the appellant on oath or affirmation, or by other lawful evidence, that the appellant is overcharged by any assessment or surcharge, the commissioners shall abate or reduce the assessment or surcharge accordingly, but otherwise every such assessment or surcharge shall stand good. (6) If, on any appeal, it appears to the commissioners that the person assessed or surcharged ought to be charged in an amount exceeding the amount contained in the assessment or surcharge, they shall charge him with the excess.'
The executors have not been paid the dividends. In 1968 they brought proceedings against the trustees to recover them. These were started by originating summons but are now being continued as a witness action with pleadings. Issues of fact as well as issues of law are involved. The trustees resist the claim upon the ground that at the time the dividends were received the late Mr. Vandervell had already parted with his beneficial interest in the shares or, if not in the shares, at any rate in the dividends declared on them. Alternatively, they say that Mr. Vandervell disposed of his interest in the dividends in 1965 after they had been received by the trustees.
If the executors recover the dividends from the trustees or if they fail to recover because Mr. Vandervell did not dispose of his interest in them until 1965, the estate of the late Mr. Vandervell will be liable to surtax in the amounts assessed on the executors. It is only if Mr. Vandervell was not entitled to the beneficial interest in the dividends at the time when they were received by the trustees that the executors would be entitled to have the assessments to surtax reduced by the special commissioners. But the onus of proving this to the satisfaction of the special commissioners would lie upon the executors; and the special commissioners would not be bound by any findings of fact made by the court in the action between the executors and the trustees. As respects any ruling by the court upon questions of law involved, the special commissioners would have to follow it, but it would be open to the commissioners of Inland Revenue (whom I will call 'the board') to appeal by way of case stated and to carry that appeal to an appellate court which might not be bound by the ruling of the court in which the proceedings between the executors and the trustees terminated.

Judgment

The House of Lords held the court had no jurisdiction under R.S.C., Order 15, regulation 6(2), to order that the Inland Revenue Commissioners would be added as a party to the proceedings, so that it could be determined if dividends belonged to the executors (which would mattered for tax liability) and the decision would be binding on the commissioners.

Notes

↑ [1967] 2 AC 291
↑ [1974] Ch 269

Related Research Articles

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states on the basis of population. It was passed by Congress in 1909 in response to the 1895 Supreme Court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 3, 1913, and effectively overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Pollock.

A dividend tax is a tax imposed by a jurisdiction on dividends paid by a corporation to its shareholders (stockholders). The primary tax liability is that of the shareholder, though a tax obligation may also be imposed on the corporation in the form of a withholding tax. In some cases the withholding tax may be the extent of the tax liability in relation to the dividend. A dividend tax is in addition to any tax imposed directly on the corporation on its profits. Some jurisdictions do not tax dividends.

Corporation tax in the United Kingdom is a corporate tax levied in on the profits made by UK-resident companies and on the profits of entities registered overseas with permanent establishments in the UK.

A resulting trust is an implied trust that comes into existence by operation of law, where property is transferred to someone who pays nothing for it; and then is implied to hold the property for the benefit of another person.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC), is the domestic portion of federal statutory tax law in the United States. It is codified in statute as Title 26 of the United States Code. The IRC is organized topically into subtitles and sections, covering federal income tax in the United States, payroll taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, and excise taxes; as well as procedure and administration. The Code's implementing federal agency is the Internal Revenue Service.

Income taxes in Canada constitute the majority of the annual revenues of the Government of Canada, and of the governments of the Provinces of Canada. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, the federal government collected just over three times more revenue from personal income taxes than it did from corporate income taxes.

Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, was a 1976 High Court of Australia tax case concerning arrangements where stockbrokers Mullens & Co accessed tax deductions for monies subscribed to a petroleum exploration company. The Australian Taxation Office held the scheme was tax avoidance, but the court found for the taxpayer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Massachusetts business trust</span>

A Massachusetts Business Trust (MBT) is a legal trust set up for the purposes of business, but not necessarily one that is operated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. They may also be referred to as an unincorporated business organization or UBO. Business trusts may be established under the laws of other U.S. states.

Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, was a High Court of Australia case concerning the tax position of company owners who sold to a dividend stripping operation. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) claimed the proceeds should be treated as dividends, but the Court held they were a capital sum like an ordinary investment asset sale.

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Peabody was a 1994 High Court of Australia tax case concerning certain transactions made by the Peabody family business. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) sought to apply the Part IVA general anti-avoidance provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.

Guy Anthony "Tony" Vandervell was a British industrialist, motor racing financier, and founder of the Vanwall Formula One racing team.

English trust law concerns the protection of assets, usually when they are held by one party for another's benefit. Trusts were a creation of the English law of property and obligations, and share a subsequent history with countries across the Commonwealth and the United States. Trusts developed when claimants in property disputes were dissatisfied with the common law courts and petitioned the King for a just and equitable result. On the King's behalf, the Lord Chancellor developed a parallel justice system in the Court of Chancery, commonly referred as equity. Historically, trusts have mostly been used where people have left money in a will, or created family settlements, charities, or some types of business venture. After the Judicature Act 1873, England's courts of equity and common law were merged, and equitable principles took precedence. Today, trusts play an important role in financial investment, especially in unit trusts and in pension trusts. Although people are generally free to set the terms of trusts in any way they like, there is a growing body of legislation to protect beneficiaries or regulate the trust relationship, including the Trustee Act 1925, Trustee Investments Act 1961, Recognition of Trusts Act 1987, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Trustee Act 2000, Pensions Act 1995, Pensions Act 2004 and Charities Act 2011.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

Taxation of income in the United States has been practised since colonial times. Some southern states imposed their own taxes on income from property, both before and after Independence. The Constitution empowered the federal government to raise taxes at a uniform rate throughout the nation, and required that "direct taxes" be imposed only in proportion to the Census population of each state. Federal income tax was first introduced under the Revenue Act of 1861 to help pay for the Civil War. It was renewed in later years and reformed in 1894 in the form of the Wilson-Gorman tariff.

Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967] 2 AC 291 is a leading English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts. It demonstrates that the mere intention to not have a resulting trust does not make it so.

Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd [1974] EWCA Civ 7 is a leading English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts.

Budget Note 66 (BN66) is the mechanism by which the UK government introduced clause 55 of the Finance Bill 2008, which would later become Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008. This specifically targeted tax planning and tax avoidance schemes that made use of offshore trusts and double taxation treaties to reduce the tax paid by the scheme's users which had previously been legal. This arrangement was originally used by property developers but was then heavily marketed to the freelance community after the introduction of intermediaries legislation known as IR35, because it appeared to offer more certainty concerning tax liabilities than would be the case if running a limited company.

Air Jamaica Ltd v Charlton [1999], UKPC 20, is an English trusts law case concerning resulting trusts. In this case, Lord Millett expressed the view that a resulting trust arises due to the absence of intention to benefit a recipient of money.

Cheney v Conn (Inspector of Taxes) [1968] 1 WLR 242, [1968] 1 All ER 779, also known as Cheney v Inland Revenue Commissioners was a decision of the English High Court in which the Court ruled that statutes made by Parliament could not be void on grounds of illegality, restating the principle that Parliament is supreme.

Akers v Samba Financial Group[2017] UKSC 6, [2017] AC 424 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to the conflict of laws, trust law and insolvency law.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] [1967] 2 AC 291

[2] [1974] Ch 269

[1]

[2]