Revision as of 23:38, 12 June 2014 edit 49.181.236.217 (talk) No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:39, 12 June 2014 edit undo 49.181.236.217 (talk) No edit summary Next edit →
Line 21: [[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.<ref>See now [[ICTA 1988]] ss 684-685</ref> However, since the Royal College of Surgeons was a charity it was not liable to pay tax on any income. So 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.<ref>At this point the trustees exercised the option and took back the shares.</ref> 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.<ref>See C Mitchell and D Hayton, ''Trusts and Equitable Remedies'' (Sweet & Maxwell 2010) 114-115</ref>

Vandervell v IRC: Difference between revisions