“It looks like HMRC argued that the client made an active choice not to take benefits and that this gives an IHT liability because, first, it reduced the value of her estate and therefore IHT liability; second, it could not be proven that there was no deliberate decision to avoid taking benefits.”
So now a court has found against a party who cannot disprove allegations made against him because he could not disprove them. Guilty as charged on the basis that an allegation is made by a contesting interested party.
Yes, I know the word guilty does not apply in a civil case but the operative principle here is universal and must not be conceded.
This ruling absolutely must be subject of an appeal.
So, the State plans to take more of our money because we decided not to take more of "its"?
ReplyDeleteDid I get that right?
How mad are we becoming.