Estate duty on hereditary baronetcy fund limited to actuarial beneficial interests; corpus did not pass on death.

For estate duty purposes, the corpus of the Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Baronetcy Fund was held not to pass on the death of the sixth baronet under sections 5, 7 or 12 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, because the fund was not settled by the deceased, remained vested in trustees under an Act of Parliament, and the death did not cause any real benefit to accrue to the estate. Only the actuarial value of the beneficial interests, including the wife's interest, was treated as passing under section 5. The baronetcy was also treated as an office within section 7(4), so section 7(1) was excluded. The unanswered reference questions were not competent to be entertained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the corpus of the Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Baronetcy Fund passed on the death of the sixth baronet under section 5, section 7, section 12 or any other provision of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, or whether only the actuarial value of the beneficial interests passed. (ii) Whether the baronetcy was an office so as to exclude the application of section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 under section 7(4).

Issue (i): Whether the corpus of the Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Baronetcy Fund passed on the death of the sixth baronet under section 5, section 7, section 12 or any other provision of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, or whether only the actuarial value of the beneficial interests passed.

Analysis: Section 12(1) applies only where the deceased had settled property by deed or other instrument and had reserved an interest or power over it. The baronetcy fund was not settled by the deceased, and the fund remained vested in trustees under an Act of Parliament. The corpus continued with the trustees and was not displaced by the death of the baronet. Section 7(1) also did not apply because the death of the sixth baronet did not cause any benefit to accrue to the estate; the fund remained burdened with the right of the next baronet to receive the income. Section 40, being only a valuation provision, could not operate independently where section 7(1) itself was inapplicable.

Conclusion: The corpus of the baronetcy fund did not pass on the death of the sixth baronet; only the actuarial value of his beneficial interest and the wife's interest was liable to be taken as passing under section 5.

Issue (ii): Whether the baronetcy was an office so as to exclude the application of section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 under section 7(4).

Analysis: The expression "office" was construed broadly to mean a permanent and substantive position held in succession by successive holders, and it was not confined to posts carrying formal duties. The baronetcy was a continuing hereditary position with successive holders and attendant benefits, and the interest enjoyed by the sixth baronet was by virtue of that office. On that construction, section 7(4) excluded the operation of section 7(1) in any event.

Conclusion: The baronetcy constituted an office, and section 7(1) was excluded by section 7(4).

Final Conclusion: The estate duty charge attached only to the actuarial value of the beneficial interests and not to the corpus of the baronetcy fund, while the unanswered reference questions raised by the accountable person were not competent to be entertained in this reference.

Ratio Decidendi: For estate duty purposes, property does not pass by cesser of interest unless the death of the deceased causes a real benefit to accrue to the estate, and an enduring hereditary post held in succession may constitute an office for the purpose of excluding section 7(1).

---