Tax was due on UKIP donations

UKIP offices in Harwich
istock_Pauws99

Arron Banks sought to use the European convention on human rights to argue that IHT charged on gifts he made to the UK Independence Party (UKIP) amounted to a breach of his human rights.

No PETS

Transfers of value (gifts or donations) made to organisations and companies (ie not to other individuals) are chargeable to IHT unless the organisation is exempt. There are specific exemptions for gifts to charities, to housing associations, for national purposes, maintenance for historic buildings and to political parties.

Chargeable lifetime gifts can also benefit from an annual exemption of £3,000, an exemption for normal expenditure paid out of income and the “nil rate band” of £325,000. Any capital gift not covered by any of these will suffer a 20% tax charge.

Facts

Arron Banks was one of the largest donors to UKIP. In 2014/15 Banks, and companies he controlled, made donations totalling £976,781 to that organisation. HMRC raised an assessment on these donations for IHT of £162,945.

Banks asserted (in case TC06768) that to deny these contributions an exemption from IHT (IHTA 1984 s24 – gifts to political parties) was a breach of his human rights.

UKIP is not a “political party”

Banks’ claim under IHTA 1984 s 24 was denied because UKIP, at the time the donations were made, failed the statutory test for a qualifying political party. This requires the party, at the last general election prior to the donation, to have had either:

  • Two MPs elected to the House of Commons; or
  • One member elected and received at least 150,000 votes.

At the relevant time, UKIP had two MPs, but neither had been elected at the 2010 general election, as both had been elected in subsequent by-elections. As the judge pointed out, it didn’t matter that UKIP had polled more votes than parties which had succeeded in having candidates elected. The test was an objective one and it had been failed.

His human rights

In fact, Banks had never argued that UKIP passed the statutory definition. His argument was that applying section 24 strictly constituted “a breach of his human rights and a breach of EU law”.

Specifically, he claimed discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the European convention on human rights (ECHR), and in particular with regard to rights bestowed by Article 1 of the first protocol to the ECHR (A1P1) – the protection of property.

What the Articles provide

A1P1 refers to the right of peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, which are not to be taken from him unjustly. However, the state may enforce laws which deprive persons of property in the public interest “or to secure the payment of taxes”.

Article 14 provides (so far as it relates to Banks’ claim) that the rights and freedoms set out in the convention must be enjoyed without discrimination “on any ground such as… political or other opinion… or other status”.

Political discrimination

Counsel for Banks argued that there was clear discrimination against him for his political views: had he been a contributor to the Labour or Conservative party, he would have been granted exemption from IHT for the donations.

HMRC argued that Banks lost out not because of his opinions, but because of his choices of action: he should pay IHT because he chose to donate to a party which failed the objective test in IHTA 1984, s 24.

The judge referred to the judgment of the European court of human rights in Clift which confirms that the convention seeks “to guarantee not rights that are theoretical and illusory but rights that are practical and effective”. That being so, its protection “should also extend to the actions that he takes as direct consequence of [his views], including making a donation to a political party that shares his opinions”.

Banks’ political opinions include his acts based on those opinions, and are, therefore, potentially a factor here. There were clearly others (for example Labour Party contributors) whose treatment was different based upon their alternative political opinions.

Limitations of FTT

The FTT did recognise that the provisions of IHTA 1984 s 24 are not proportionate to the aim of encouraging the private funding of political parties which are participating in parliamentary democracy. It also acknowledged that the effect of the legislation is discriminatory against the supporters of newer and smaller parties, and that it places undue emphasis on the outcome of general elections whilst ignoring European elections or by-elections. But the FTT cannot simply invalidate those provisions.

Section 3 of the Human Rights Act (which brings the ECHR into UK law) requires courts to “give legislation an interpretation which is consistent with ECHR rights even if the relevant legislation is not itself ambiguous”. It does not empower the courts to rewrite statute root and branch.

While clearly it is unsatisfactory that the definition in IHTA 1984 s 24 (which was originally drafted in 1975) does not reflect the modern political landscape, to remedy it is the work of parliament, not the tribunals. The judge was “not able to re-write the legislation”.

Other status

Because the discrimination appeal had failed, the judge did not need to examine whether Banks was being discriminated against as a result of his “status” as a UKIP supporter. The judge did so for completeness, and declined to treat Banks’ UKIP support as constituting an “other status”.

Conclusions

This was an appeal which was never likely to prosper. Even setting aside the irony of the situation (a UKIP sponsor seeking the aid of EU law), it was directed to the wrong forum.

The FTT has the power to interpret UK law in a manner consistent with the ECHR; it does not have the power to ignore UK law where there is inconsistency, and certainly not to rewrite it into a more acceptable format.

If the definition in IHTA 1984 s 24 is obsolete (which is more than arguable), only parliament can do anything about it. The tribunals and courts will not be able to help.

About Andy Keates

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

13th Nov 2018 15:12

What a shame to get caught on such a technicality, if only he had read the rules rather than just making it up as he went along.

Couldn't happen to a nicer chap, and I especially like how he tried (and failed) to invoke the human rights act which the right wing press seem to think is a magic get out of jail card - when they want to get rid of it that is.

Thanks (7)
By k743snx
to ireallyshouldknowthisbut
16th Nov 2018 12:31

What right-wing press?

Thanks (2)
avatar
13th Nov 2018 13:27

Brexiter in 'not understanding EU rules' shock

Thanks (1)
avatar
13th Nov 2018 13:38

Just to be clear HRA 1998 is not EU law (it's obviously UK law, albeit potentially subject to ECtHR if your appeal gets that far), so that is not ironic. What's ironic is that he (as mentioned above additionally) asserted EU freedoms laws as a defence per my comment in the link below.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/large-brexitremain-campaign-...

Also, HRA 1998 will not be revoked on Brexit as far as I am aware (it's got nothing to do with EU law really).

Thanks (0)
avatar
13th Nov 2018 18:36

Sorry to be boring but ECHR is nothing to do with the EU or the European Council it is a creature of the Council of Europe.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to johnhemming
19th Nov 2018 11:47

You are excused for boring us

Thanks (0)
avatar
16th Nov 2018 11:38

So he made a decision based on a lack of understanding of the key issues, and when reality dawned he refused to admit he'd been wrong?

At least he can take some comfort in the tribunal having upheld the sovereignty of Parliament.

Thanks (2)
avatar
to brianheg
19th Nov 2018 11:49

We can all misunderstand at times.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to brianheg
19th Nov 2018 11:49

We can all misunderstand at times.

Thanks (1)
avatar
16th Nov 2018 11:40

I am sure that he will find other ways to get this tax back, and good luck to him.

Thanks (1)
avatar
16th Nov 2018 11:53

I want to leave Europe, but before we go can I just rely on European law please to get a tax break....

Surely it goes against everything he stands for and shouldnt he be proud to pay the UK tax

Thanks (1)
avatar
16th Nov 2018 11:53

I want to leave Europe, but before we go can I just rely on European law please to get a tax break....

Surely it goes against everything he stands for and shouldnt he be proud to pay the UK tax

Thanks (0)
By k743snx
16th Nov 2018 12:33

Not an opportunity missed to demonise UKIP.

LibLabCon are so squeaky-clean, aren't they?

Thanks (1)
avatar
16th Nov 2018 13:31

Oh dear, what a pity, never mind.

Thanks (0)
avatar
16th Nov 2018 14:00

UKIP holds itself out as a political party and we as the electorate have been able to vote for them.
I am not happy with this judgement my fiscal neurons are over heating.
Aeron could not have known at the time of him being generous to UKIP. CGT is payable when the transfer is made so he would have had interest imposed.
The legal definition of a political party seems unfair.

Thanks (1)
avatar
16th Nov 2018 13:52

Sooner we are away from the shackles of the EU and it's unelected elites the better. Viva la revolucion.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to SJH-ADVDIPMA
19th Nov 2018 11:31

Achtung! !!!

Thanks (0)
avatar
17th Nov 2018 11:55

The definition of political party for the purposes of this law seems somewhat arbitrary. But presumably a loan rather than a gift would have resulted in a different outcome.

Thanks (2)
avatar
to listerramjet
19th Nov 2018 11:45

I salute you for your wisdom

Thanks (0)
avatar
to listerramjet
19th Nov 2018 11:45

I salute you for your wisdom

Thanks (0)
avatar
19th Nov 2018 11:42

I believe in harmony and strong intergovernmental working together but the EU confederacy has become too politically dominant seeking federation status. Imagine Heir Merkel as our president. Achtung!
Theresa May is signing a deal which means we will be effectively a colony of the EU and an external tariff tax collector for them for years. £39, 000,000,000 for a rule taker position with no say and bound to an EU customs union
Shame on you May !

Thanks (0)
avatar
19th Nov 2018 11:43

I believe in harmony and strong intergovernmental working together but the EU confederacy has become too politically dominant seeking federation status. Imagine Heir Merkel as our president. Achtung!
Theresa May is signing a deal which means we will be effectively a colony of the EU and an external tariff tax collector for them for years. £39, 000,000,000 for a rule taker position with no say and bound to an EU customs union
Shame on you May !

Thanks (0)
avatar
By SRW
21st Nov 2018 21:57

Theresa May is taking us out of the EU. Ha Ha Ha... not really. She was only joking. Good job she wasn't PM in May 1940!

Thanks (0)
avatar
to SRW
27th Nov 2018 17:31

May's deal keeps us in the customs union so we will be tax collectors for the Eu vis a vis external tarifs. Yet we voted to leave. The deal will be voted down. £39.000.000.000 for a customs union and no future trade arrangement. We would be an EU colony fettered to a customs union with no power to transact trade deals with other countries.
Cameron and May have been a disaster.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to SRW
27th Nov 2018 17:34

And pigs fly

Thanks (0)