The Executors of Keith Denis Lewis Beresford (Deceased) v Revenue and Customs (Inheritance tax - business property relief - s.105(3) IHTA 1984 - shares in a company - whether the business carried on by the company consisted wholly or mainly of making or holding investments) [2026] UKUT 285 (TCC) (29 July 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal heard an appeal by the executors of Keith Beresford against HMRC on whether shares in Fiveteam Ltd qualified for inheritance tax business property relief under s.105(3) IHTA 1984. The case turned on whether Ninecourt Ltd’s business, carried on through a serviced-office arrangement at 16 High Holborn, was wholly or mainly making or holding investments rather than an active trading business.

Key points

• Parties: executors of Keith Beresford (appellant) v HMRC (respondents).
• Issue: whether Ninecourt’s business fell within s.105(3) IHTA 1984 so that shares in its holding company were excluded from business property relief.
• Facts: Ninecourt owned 16 High Holborn; two floors were let on commercial leases and four floors were used for serviced offices run by Orega as agent.
• Reasoning focus: the Tribunal reviewed the serviced-office model, fee structure, client arrangements, and Ninecourt/Orega functions to assess whether the business was mainly investment-holding.
• No sanctions/export-control angle appears on the face of the decision; it is a domestic inheritance tax case.
• Outcome on the source excerpt: the appeal was against the FTT’s finding that business property relief was unavailable, but the excerpt does not include the Upper Tribunal’s final disposition.

Why it matters

The decision is relevant to sovereign-risk analysis because it illustrates how UK tribunals distinguish active operational businesses from asset-holding structures for tax purposes. That classification can affect valuation, succession planning, and the tax treatment of UK real-estate-intensive corporate groups that may also be used in cross-border investment structures.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the case signals that detailed operational features of serviced-office and property-income models will be scrutinised closely when testing the s.105(3) investment-business exclusion. Parties seeking business property relief should expect HMRC and tribunals to focus on the balance between service provision and the underlying property/investment character of the business.