9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of settlement under s. 29 of the Estate Duty Act. Detailed Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of certain properties in the estate of a deceased individual for duty purposes. The deceased had left a will where the properties were to be transferred to his wife for her lifetime and then to a trust. The Department sought to include these properties in the deceased wife's estate for duty purposes. The accountable person argued that the properties were part of a settlement through the will and thus exempt from duty under s. 29 of the Estate Duty Act. The Assistant Controller initially rejected this argument, but the Appellate Controller later accepted it, ruling that the properties were not liable to Estate Duty. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal analyzed the provisions of s. 29 of the Estate Duty Act, which pertains to settled property. The Tribunal noted that settled property includes property obtained by way of succession. The Tribunal disagreed with the Department's contention that a settlement must be a bilateral disposition, stating that a settlement can be made through a will, taking effect upon the testator's death. The Tribunal outlined the three conditions under s. 29: the property must have been settled, estate duty must have been paid on the property after the death of the deceased's spouse, and the deceased must not have had the power of disposition over the property at the time of death. In this case, all three conditions were met: the properties were part of a settlement through the deceased husband's will, estate duty was paid after the settlement, and the deceased wife had no power of disposition over the properties. The Tribunal cited a previous decision by another Bench supporting this interpretation. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Appellate Controller's decision and dismissed the Department's appeal.
|
