It was a pleasure to work with Humphries Kirk and to provide the advice and IHT 400 strategy to achieve this result (see attractive link). A significant absence of  IHT.  Too many "professionals" simply do not work through the law and the property rights in both jurisdictions  and, as a result  of that false logic give a false position.

Is the phrase "It must be a 'trust'" appropriate when, surely, the first question should be "why is something that is not a trust or settlement by definition abroad suddenly become one in the UK?". Is it because a French lawyer recently or not so recently immigrated to London who does not know what a trust is opines that it must be one because that is what everyone else thinks and that is what HMRC have said?  HMRC are clear enough, it is no more than an "approach".

If HMRC are taken through the correct approach path to the correct assessment, then they will accept the better EU compliant approach, because they cannot afford the litigation risk - when emplying psychologists to assess herd behaviour.

If the last paragraph of s.43 (2) ITA is read correctly within its linguistic and statutory context with an understanding of English statutory interpetation, the answer is clear enough: HMRC needs to justify its "view" or now "approach", not the other way around! The fog is in their minds, not that of the civil law pilot with a clear view of the second runway at Heathrow.  However I am not going to explain that otherwise than in an opinion.

If you wish to be "shorn" correctly, is it not best to check that you enter the right fold before the hired hand locks the narrow door behind you, and runs for it leaving a wide hole for double taxation on different (il)legal approaches for the wolf to traipse through.

It was also a pleasure and an honour to have been a tenant at Temple Tax whilst I was elaborating this position with the assistance of John Dick.

There are doubtless a few who may wish to review their positions on this in London. Perhaps a little early to check insurance cover.

Those preparing IHT 400s with such French or other civil property rights need to get advice first before making any assumptions. The IHT "savings" can be significant, not because there is any tax avoidance, but simply because there is no tax to avoid if you declare the legal property rights correctly as such.  To call it a "saving" is perhaps a misnomer. this in not in fact a "saving", just a correct declaration of a foreign property right with EU protection, which has to be correctly advised upon and handled.

Few immigrant French lawyers in the UK are culturally aware enough of what a trust is to be able to address one on its home soil, let alone averr that one of their indigenous property rights should be assimilated to one for tax purposes out of mere convenience. The advice of a specialist in the tax aspects of private international law, such as myself, is necessary.

Those who have paid over substantial sums of IHT on a mistaken basis might wish to question those advising them on precisely why they were advising them to do so ....