Accident insurance proceeds can form part of the dutiable estate when a contingent proprietary interest passes on death.

Accident insurance proceeds were analysed under the Estate Duty Act as distinct from life insurance and were not covered by section 14, which is confined to policies on the life of the insured kept up for a donee's benefit. The deceased's contingent contractual interest under the accident policy was treated as proprietary property capable of passing on death, so the sums received by the nominee or legal representatives fell within sections 5, 6 and 15. Because the deceased had such an interest, the amounts were not eligible for separate treatment under section 34(3) and were aggregable with the estate. Valuation was to be made by reference to the date of death.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceeds received under personal accident insurance policies were chargeable to estate duty under section 14 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953; (ii) whether the deceased had a proprietary interest in the policies and whether the sums received by the nominee or legal representatives were liable to estate duty under sections 5, 6 and 15 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953; (iii) whether the sums could be treated as a separate estate under section 34(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953; and (iv) whether valuation had to be made with reference to the date of death.

Issue (i): Whether proceeds received under personal accident insurance policies were chargeable to estate duty under section 14 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Analysis: Section 14 applies to moneys received under a policy of insurance effected by a person on his life and wholly kept up by him for the benefit of a donee. The provision is directed to life insurance policies and, on its plain language, does not extend to accident policies. The section cannot be enlarged to include accident insurance merely because the policy was taken out by the deceased or because the beneficiary received the proceeds on death.

Conclusion: The proceeds were not chargeable under section 14.

Issue (ii): Whether the deceased had a proprietary interest in the policies and whether the sums received by the nominee or legal representatives were liable to estate duty under sections 5, 6 and 15 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Analysis: An accident policy is a contract of insurance conferring on the assured a contractual and proprietary interest in the contingent right to receive payment on the happening of the insured event. That interest is not a mere spes successionis. The beneficial interest payable on death arose when the contingency occurred and, in the case of death, the beneficiary or legal representatives became entitled to receive the sums assured. On the statutory scheme, sections 5 and 6 are wide enough to catch property passing on death and property of which the deceased was competent to dispose, while section 15 extends to any annuity or other interest purchased or provided by the deceased from which a beneficial interest accrues or arises on death. The accident policy proceeds were therefore within the charging provisions.

Conclusion: The sums were liable to estate duty under sections 5 and 6 and section 15.

Issue (iii): Whether the sums could be treated as a separate estate under section 34(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Analysis: Section 34(3) excludes aggregation only where the deceased never had any interest in the property passing, apart from the specified exceptions. Since the deceased had a contingent proprietary interest under the accident policies, it could not be said that he never had any interest in the property. The sums were therefore not entitled to separate treatment under that provision.

Conclusion: The amounts were aggregable with the rest of the estate and could not be assessed as a separate estate under section 34(3).

Issue (iv): Whether valuation had to be made with reference to the date of death.

Analysis: For estate duty, the relevant valuation is the value as it stands on the date on which the property passes on death, not merely the value of the premiums paid during life. The sums became ascertainable and taxable on the death of the insured.

Conclusion: Valuation was to be made by reference to the date of death.

Final Conclusion: The accident insurance moneys formed part of the dutiable estate and were chargeable to estate duty under the Act, with aggregation and valuation determined on the basis of the deceased's death.

Ratio Decidendi: A contingent proprietary interest under an accident insurance policy is

---