A judicial review to challenge the government’s inheritance tax reform is taking place in the High Court today (Wednesday, March 18), with farmers and rural businesses arguing that they were not properly consulted on the incoming changes.
The legal challenge was brought forward to the Royal Court of Justice yesterday by farmers Tom Martin, his father George and campaign group Farmers and Businesses for Fair Tax Relief, who are being supported by law firm Collyer Bristow on behalf of Alvarez & Marsal Tax.
The two-day court affair will examine whether the government’s consultation process for the proposed changes to Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) was “adequate, timely and in keeping with its legal obligations.”
Claimants, such as the Martin family, believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves acted unlawfully by not following published policy when she proposed these changes to APR and BPR for the Autumn Budget two years ago.
Back in 2011, the UK government put in place the Tax Consultation Framework, which includes a promise to “carry out at least one formal, written, public consultation in areas of significant reform.”
However, claimants are arguing that Reeves did not keep this promise when she proposed the changes to inheritance tax, and instead only undertook a “limited technical consultation on a narrow aspect of the proposed reforms relating to trusts.”
Collyer Bristow stated that the High Court case is set to wrap up later this afternoon and judgement will likely be reserved at the end of the hearing, which will be published in writing at a later date.
Claimants
James Austen, who is the partner at Collyer Bristow with conduct of the claim, said: “The court is hearing the claim at a difficult and uncertain time for UK farms and businesses, whom the Chancellor chose to shut out from the design and implementation of this controversial tax change, which has caused such deep concern to so many people.
“Long experience shows tax consultations to be necessary for damaging unintended consequences – and embarrassing u-turns – to be avoided.
“It is disappointing the government refused to change course in this case, leaving the claimants with no alternative but to ask the court to hold the government to its promises.”
Speaking before the hearing yesterday, farmer Tom Martin noted that “he should be on the farm planting barley or spreading fertiliser” instead of attending the High Court.
He added: “This legal case matters to everyone affected by the proposed tax changes, and I am proud to speak for the concerns of farmers and business owners whose livelihoods would be impacted.
“By deciding not to have a proper consultation, the government knowingly chose to deny us the chance to influence the new policy and its implementation
“I hope justice will prevail and the Court will hold the government to its word.”
MPs
Over the two days, many MPs have showed solidarity with the claimants, including Northern Irish politician Carla Lockhart, who met with farmers outside the High Court.
The DUP spokesperson for agriculture reiterated her stance against the inheritance tax proposals, stating that they place “an unfair and unsustainable burden on family farms.”
She commended the claimants for “taking a stand on behalf of rural communities across the UK.”
Shadow government officials, such as Conservative MPs Robbie Moore and Victoria Atkins were also in attendance outside the High Court to show support.
After sitting in on court proceeding yesterday, Moore said: “The claimants quite rightly argue that the government broke its own tax policy principles by failing to conduct a proper consultation and neglecting broader impacts including on food security, rural economies, and potential distortions under the Windsor Framework.”
