HMRC v The Executors of Lord Henderskelfe (2014) - Royds Withy King Solicitors

Search our news, events & opinions

On 1 September 2016 Withy King LLP merged with Royds LLP. The trading name for the merged firm is Royds Withy King. All content produced prior to this date will remain in the name of the firms pre-merger.

22 July 2014 0 Comments
Posted in Uncategorized

HMRC v The Executors of Lord Henderskelfe (2014)

Posted by ,

The Court of Appeal published its eagerly awaited judgement in April in the case of HMRC v The Executors of Lord Howard of Henderskelfe (deceased) ([2014] EWCA Civ 278). The case concerned a portrait of significant value which had been …

The Court of Appeal published its eagerly awaited judgement in April in the case of HMRC v The Executors of Lord Howard of Henderskelfe (deceased) ([2014] EWCA Civ 278).

The case concerned a portrait of significant value which had been exhibited at Castle Howard. The painting, which had been owned by a limited company, had opened the historic castle to the public. Approximately 17 years after the death of Lord Howard, his executors sold the painting for £9.4million, realising a substantial gain.

Having argued that the gain was exempt from Capital Gains Tax (CGT) due to the fact that it fell within the technical legal definition of a ‘wasting asset’ (i.e. an asset with a predictable life not exceeding 50 years), their claim was rejected by the First Tier Tax Tribunal but upheld by the Upper Tribunal. When HMRC appealed to the Court of Appeal, they did not argue that the painting was not a wasting asset, but instead that Lord Howard’s executors could not take advantage of the CGT exemption because they themselves had not actually used it in trade.

The Court of Appeal rejected this appeal on the grounds that there was nothing in the legislation to say that the individual benefitting from the exemption had to be the person who had actually used the asset in trade.

It seems bizarre that a valuable old masterpiece was treated as a ‘wasting asset’ despite the fact that it was clearly already much older than that. This is because the law states that ‘plant and machinery’ always has a life of less than 50 years – and because the painting was an asset ‘used in trade’, it is classified as ‘plant’.

For more information, please visit or contact Tony Millson or Deanna Hurst.

Leave a comment

Thank you for choosing to leave a comment. Please keep in mind that comments are moderated and please do not use a spammy keyword or a domain as your name or it will be deleted.

*

optional

Royds Import Individuals

Keeping you informed about Royds Import Individuals news, events and opinion.

Search our news, events & opinions