Tax tribunal rules that Arron Banks suffered political discrimination

14 November 2018 by

Ukipsm.svgBanks v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2018] UKFTT 617 (TC) – read judgment

Donations made by Arron Banks to the United Kingdom Independence Party (‘UKIP’) are subject to a tax regime which discriminates against the donor on grounds of his political opinion, the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) has found.



Mr Banks and companies controlled by him donated £976,781.38 to UKIP between 7th October 2014 and 31st March 2015.

As the donations constituted ‘transfers of value’ within s.3 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (‘IHTA’), they attract a payment of inheritance tax unless a relevant exemption applies.

Section 24 of the IHTA provides for an exemption for gifts to political parties where at the last general election preceding the transfer of value in the following circumstances:

(2) …

(a) Two members of that party were elected to the House of Commons, or

(b) One members of that party was elected to the House of Commons and not less than 150,000 votes were given to candidates who were members of that party.

The fact that UKIP failed to have any MPs elected from its ranks on 6th May 2010 meant that, on the face of s.24, Mr Banks’s donations could not fall within the exemption.


Article 14

Mr Banks contended that this was discriminatory.

The Judge accepted as a starting point the well-known five-stage approach as set out by Lord Steyn in R (S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [2004] UKHL 39 at [42]:

(1) Do the facts fall within the ambit of one or more of the Convention rights?

(2) Was there a difference in treatment in respect of that right between the complainant and others put forward for comparison?

(3) If so, was the difference in treatment on one or more of the proscribed grounds under article 14?

(4) Were those others in an analogous situation?

(5) Was the difference in treatment objectively justifiable in the sense that it had a legitimate aim and bore a reasonable relationship of proportionality to that aim?

As to (1) and (2), it was agreed that the provision fell within the ambit of Article 1 of the First Protocol (the right to protection of property), and that there was differential treatment.


Was the difference in treatment on a proscribed ground?

Mr Banks had to demonstrate that this differential treatment fell within a proscribed ground of Article 14, which relevantly states:

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as … political or other opinion, … or other status.

HMRC contended that Mr Banks’s case did not fall within ‘political opinion’. It was said his donation, not opinion, led to differential treatment.

The Judge disagreed. The aim of the ECHR is “to guarantee not rights that are theoretical and illusory but rights that are practical and effective” (Clift v UK Application No 72205/07 at [60]). A donation to UKIP is presumably a direct consequence of political support of UKIP, and it was a natural expression of political opinion to make a political donation. Mr Banks’s differential treatment fell within the proscribed ground of political opinion.

The Judge went on to hold that if Mr Banks did not fall within the ground of ‘political opinion’, then he had no other relevant status for the purposes of Article 14. This was so because Mr Banks’s status derived from the differential treatment itself. The only distinction between him and a donor to a party that would qualify for the exemption is that they fall on different sides of the test under s.24.

Therefore, the characteristic in respect of which differential treatment was applied to Mr Banks does not exist independently of the discrimination about which he complains. While the Judge acknowledged that this may go against the grain of case law from the European Court of Human Rights on this issue, the tribunal was bound by the House of Lords case of Clift v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 54 and so could only find against Mr Banks on this issue.


A proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

The judgment contains a broad discussion about the correct approach to this question and is rewarding reading for those with an interest in discrimination law.

Mr Banks contended that HMRC had not demonstrated a legitimate aim of the legislation at the relevant time, which is when the differential treatment took place. Developments in the law since 1975 meant that if there ever were a requirement for s.24 to prevent abuse of such tax relief, it could not be said that it remained.

HMRC’s response relied in essence on the opportunity afforded by Lord Nicholls’ dictum in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No. 2) [2004] 1 AC 816 at [63] to take the legislation at face value: “the facts will often speak for themselves”. The tribunal is entitled to determine a policy objective from the face of the legislation. Tax relief is a form of public funding of political activity, and it is not irrational to direct that funding towards those parties who participate in Parliamentary democracy.

While the Judge agreed that such legitimate aims exist, the more difficult question for HMRC in this case was the proportionality of the means employed to further them.

The main point on this issue in the Judge’s mind was whether the provision – that political parties should be able to show a minimum level of public support before qualifying for tax relief – is proportionate in the context of the differential treatment it for which it provides.

The Judge found that it was not. A balance needs to be struck between achieving that legitimate aim and the impact on Mr Banks’s rights. While public support is not an irrational measure, seats obtained in the previous election is not a reliable barometer of public support. As such, the test prejudices supporters of new parties, even where they may enjoy a significant degree of support from the public.


Looking ahead

Mr Banks won on the issues, but he is left without a remedy.

Under s.3 of the Human Rights Act a tribunal can be required to interpret legislation in a way which is consistent with ECHR rights, and a number of suggestions were put forward by Mr Banks for the judge to do so.

But the problem for him was the clarity of the fundamental feature of the legislation, namely to restrict tax relief to those political parties with a certain number of MPs. The Judge recalled the limits set out by Lord Nicholls in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30 at [53]:

Parliament, however, cannot have intended that in the discharge of this extended interpretative function the courts should adopt a meaning inconsistent with a fundamental feature of legislation. That would be to cross the constitutional boundary section 3 seeks to demarcate and preserve.

However, Mr Banks was also denied a declaration of incompatibility (by which the tribunal declares that the legislative provision is contrary to the ECHR), as Parliament has not given the First-tier Tribunal the power to make such a declaration under s.4 HRA.

Time will tell whether the challenge to the regime is sustained by way of appeal or judicial review. For now, Mr Banks’s case serves as a useful reminder of two interrelated points. First, that in significant areas of discrimination law the thrust of domestic courts’ decisions run against the grain of those of the European Court of Human Rights. Second, and perhaps more aptly in this case, that the ECHR can be somewhat of a blunt instrument in the face of clear provisions of primary legislation.


Thomas Beamont is a pupil barrister at One Crown Office Row.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: