Pearson and Ors v Inland Revenue Commissioners

[1981] A.C. 753

(Decision by: Lord Salmon)

Between: Pearson and Ors - Respondents
And: Inland Revenue Commissioners - Appellants

Court:
House of Lords

Judges: Viscount Dilhorne

Lord Salmon
Lord Russell of Killowen
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Lord Lane

Subject References:
REVENUE
CAPITAL TRANSFER TAX
SETTLEMENT
Trust for settlor's children subject to overriding power of appointment
Trustees' power to accumulate and apply income for duties, taxes, outgoings
Appointment of cash to beneficiary
Whether beneficiary's interest 'interest in possession' before appointment
Whether chargeable to capital transfer tax

Legislative References:
Finance Act 1975 (c. 7) - s. 21, Sch. 5, para. 6 (2)

Case References:
Allen-Meyrick's Will Trusts, In re - [1966] 1 W.L.R. 499; [1966] 1 All E.R. 740
Alston-Roberts-West's Settled Estates, In re - [1928] W.N. 41
Attorney-General v. Farrell - [1931] 1 K.B. 81, C.A.
Attorney-General v. Heywood - (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 326, D.C.
Attorney-General v. Power - [1906] 2 I.R. 272
Aylwin's Trusts, in re - (1873) L.R. 16 Eq. 585
Baden's Deed Trusts, In re - [1971] A.C. 424; [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110; [1970] 2 All E.R. 228, H.L.(E.)
Baird v. Lord Advocate - [1979] A.C. 666; [1979] 2 W.L.R. 369; [1979] 2 All E.R. 28, H.L.(Sc.)
Berkeley, decd., In re - [1968] Ch. 744; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 253; [1968] 3 All E.R. 364, C.A.
Burrell and Kinnaird v. Attorney-General - [1937] A.C. 286; [1936] 3 All E.R. 758, H.L.(E.)
Buttle's Will Trusts, In re - [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1200; [1976] 3 All E.R. 289; [1977] 3 All E.R. 1039, Templeman J. and C.A.
Clitheroe Estate, In re - (1885) 31 Ch.D. 135, C.A.
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Queensland) v. Livingston - [1965] A.C. 694; [1964] 3 W.L.R. 963; [1964] 3 All E.R. 692, P.C.
Corbett v. Inland Revenue Commissioners - [1938] 1 K.B. 567
Fleming v. London Produce Co. Ltd - [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1013; [1968] 2 All E.R. 975
Gartside v. Inland Revenue Commissioners - [1968] A.C. 553; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 277; [1968] 1 All E.R. 121, H.L.(E.)
Gestetner Settlement, In re - [1953] Ch. 672; [1953] 2 W.L.R. 1033; [1953] 1 All E.R. 1150
Gourju's Will Trusts, In re - [1943] Ch. 24; [1942] 2 All E.R. 605
Gulbenkian's Settlements, In re (No. 2) - [1970] Ch. 408; [1969] 3 W.L.R. 450; [1969] 2 All E.R. 1173
Joel's Will Trusts, In re - [1967] Ch. 14; [1966] 3 W.L.R. 209; [1966] 2 All E.R. 482
Jones, In re - (1884) 26 Ch.D. 736, C.A.
Kirkness v. John Hudson & Co. Ltd - [1955] A.C. 696; [1955] 2 W.L.R. 1135; [1955] 2 All E.R. 345, H.L.(E.)
Locker's Settlement, In re - [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1323; [1978] 1 All E.R. 216
Londonderry's Settlement, In re - [1965] Ch. 918; [1965] 2 W.L.R. 229; [1964] 3 All E.R. 855, C.A.
Lord Advocate v. Fothringham - [1924] S.C. 52
Ormond Investment Co. Ltd. v. Betts - [1928] A.C. 143, H.L.(E.)
Macfarlang v. Inland Revenue Commissioners - 1929 S.C. 453
Master's Settlement, In re - [1911] 1 Ch. 321
Morgan, In re - (1883) 24 Ch.D. 114
Murray v. Inland Revenue Commissioners - [1926] 11 T.C. 133
Phipps (P.) & Co. Ltd. v. Rogers - [1915] 1 K.B. 14
Rank Xerox Ltd. v. Lane - [1981] A.C. 629; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 594; [1979] 3 All E.R. 657, H.L.(E.)
Rochford's Settlement Trusts, In re - [1965] Ch. 111; [1964] 2 W.L.R. 1339; [1964] 2 All E.R. 177
Sargaison v. Roberts - [1969] 1 W.L.R. 951; [1969] 3 All E.R. 1072
Spens v. Inland Revenue Commissioners - [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1173; [1970] 3 All E.R. 245
Vestey v. Inland Revenue Commissioners - [1980] A.C. 1148; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 915; [1979] 3 All E.R. 976, H.L.(E.)
Vine v. Raleigh - [1891] 2 Ch. 13, C.A.
Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners - [1958] A.C. 210; [1957] 3 W.L.R. 427; [1957] 2 All E.R. 745, H.L.(E.)

Hearing date: 27-28 February, 3-6, 10 March 1980
Judgment date: 1 May 1980

Decision by:
Lord Salmon

My Lords, I am in complete agreement with the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Russell of Killowen and with the judgments of Buckley and Templeman L.JJ. and Fox J., and there is nothing I can usefully add to the cogent reasons which they give for rejecting the arguments advanced in support of the case for the Inland Revenue Commissioners. I would, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.