UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000060 - [2024] UKUT 00070 (TCC)

I should also consider whether it is appropriate to make an ACO, possibly capping the recoverable costs by reference to HMRC’s estimate of £20,000 plus VAT.

I have not had any submissions specifically directed to how the jurisdiction pursuant to CPR 52.19 might apply by analogy in the circumstances of this application. However, I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to make any form of ACO. I take into account the means of the Appellants in the same way that I have taken them into account in relation to a PCO. I must also take into account all the circumstances of the case and the need to facilitate access to justice. CPR 52.19(3) specifically identifies that if substantial sums turn on the outcome of the appeal, it may not be appropriate to make an ACO.

Whilst I accept that Mrs Pearce is of modest means, the fact remains that a substantial sum was transferred by PL to the Marshall Trust. The IHT liability in this case is significant because PL sought to remove £1m from his estate prior to his death. In my view there is nothing unfair in the Appellants being exposed to liability for the costs of appealing a decision of the FTT that the scheme was ineffective.