|
''Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners'' () 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 (for example, to avoid taxes) does not make it so. This case was the first in a series of decisions involving Tony Vandervell's trusts and his tax liability. It concerned whether an oral instruction to transfer an equitable interest in shares complied with the writing requirement under LPA 1925 section 53(1)(c), and so whether receipt of dividends was subject to tax. The second was ''Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd'',〔() AC 912〕 which involved the Special Commissioner of the Inland Revenue's ability to amend tax assessments. The third was Re Vandervell's Trusts (No 2),() which concerned whether Vandervell could be taxed because he could have an equitable interest through a resulting trust if he had exercised an option right. ==Facts== Tony Vandervell was a wealthy racing car manufacturer with a company called Vandervell Products Ltd. He wanted to donate to the Royal College of Surgeons, to establish a chair of pharmacology. He also wanted to avoid paying tax on the donation. At the time, stamp duty applied to outright donations and taxes applied to any income through dividends on company shares.〔See now ICTA 1988 ss 684-685〕 However, since the Royal College of Surgeons was a charity it was not liable to pay tax on any income. Vandervell orally instructed his trust company (Vandervell Trustees Ltd, which was also set up to administer his money for his children) to transfer 100,000 shares in Vandervell Products Ltd to the Royal College of Surgeons, with an option for the trustees to purchase back the shares back for £5000. He then instructed the company to declare a dividend on the shares. So while the shares were in the possession of the Royal College of Surgeons, it paid out £145,000 in dividends up to 1961. Vandervell had hoped this would mean that he would avoid tax (as opposed to simply getting income for himself, on which he would pay tax, and then giving the money to the College). Unfortunately, in 1961, the Inland Revenue made a claim for tax on the transfer.〔At this point the trustees exercised the option and took back the shares.〕 The Inland Revenue argued that Vandervell retained an equitable interest in the shares. They were still his, even though the shares were possessed by the College, he had the option to get them back. They also argued his oral instruction to the trust company was not capable of transferring the equitable interest, because it did not comply with the formality requirements specified in Law of Property Act 1925 section 53(1)(c). This section requires signed writing to evidence the existence of a disposition. So he should be liable to pay tax on the value of those shares.〔See C Mitchell and D Hayton, ''Trusts and Equitable Remedies'' (Sweet & Maxwell 2010) 114-115〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Vandervell v IRC」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|