Brexit-backing millionaire loses court fight over Ukip donations tax bill

HMRC assessed Arron Banks as owing just over £160,000 on almost £1 million in donations to the political party between October 2014 and March 2015.

Jess Glass
Wednesday 06 October 2021 06:46 EDT
Millionaire Brexit-backing businessman Arron Banks has lost his Court of Appeal fight over a six-figure inheritance tax bill on his donations to Ukip (Victoria Jones/PA)
Millionaire Brexit-backing businessman Arron Banks has lost his Court of Appeal fight over a six-figure inheritance tax bill on his donations to Ukip (Victoria Jones/PA) (PA Archive)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Millionaire Brexit-backing businessman Arron Banks has lost his Court of Appeal fight over a six-figure inheritance tax bill on his donations to Ukip.

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) assessed Mr Banks – one of the self-styled “Bad Boys of Brexit” – as owing just over £160,000 on almost £1 million in donations to Ukip between October 2014 and March 2015.

Donations to political parties which had two MPs elected at the last general election, or one MP elected and a total of 150,000 votes, are exempt from inheritance tax.

While Ukip received 919,471 votes across the UK in the 2010 general election, the party did not return a single MP to the House of Commons, prompting HMRC to bill Mr Banks for £162,945.34.

However, Mr Banks challenged the decision at two tribunals, arguing that the law on political donations being exempt from inheritance tax breached his human rights and EU law.

He claimed the provisions of the Inheritance Tax Act were unlawfully discriminatory under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as breaching his – and Ukip’s – right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly under the ECHR.

After both the first-tier tribunal (FTT) and the upper tribunal dismissed his claim, Mr Banks brought a Court of Appeal challenge in May.

However, in a judgment handed down on Wednesday, three judges found that he had failed to establish a breach of his human rights and dismissed the appeal.

There is nothing about Ukip or its supporters which places them in a different category from all other supporters of political parties who are denied exemption for their gifts

Court of Appeal judges

Lord Justice Henderson sitting with Sir Julian Flaux and Lady Justice Nicola Davies, said: “There is nothing about Ukip or its supporters which places them in a different category from all other supporters of political parties who are denied exemption for their gifts.”

The Court of Appeal heard that, while Ukip did not win any seats in the 2010 general election, it did obtain two MPs in by-elections in 2014.

However, Lord Justice Henderson ruled: “The requirement that the party should have at least one MP at Westminster cannot possibly be stigmatised as irrational.

“Similarly, the exclusion of MPs elected at by-elections or who defect from other parties reflects the different, and possibly more volatile, political circumstances in which a party may acquire such MPs.”

Lord Justice Henderson later accepted that the law did discriminate against Mr Banks directly “on the basis that he was a supporter of a party that had secured no seats in the House of Commons at the 2010 general election”.

However, the judge concluded that he had “no hesitation” in finding that HMRC had justified the difference in treatment, meaning it was still lawful.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in