29.07.2026

Hastings-Bass and Pitt v Holt

Hastings-Bass and Pitt v Holt

twitter icon

Lessons from Hastings-Bass and Pitt v Holt: For years, trustees and advisers took comfort in a perceived safety net: if a trust decision produced an unexpected tax result, it could often be undone. The so‑called Hastings-Bass principle became seen as a “get out of jail free” card. That position has now changed fundamentally.

Re Hastings-Bass arose from a 1947 settlement. In 1958, trustees advanced £50,000 into a sub‑settlement, part of which was void for perpetuity. On the settlor’s death, HMRC argued the funds remained in the original settlement, triggering estate duty. The Court of Appeal held that where trustees exercise discretion, the court may intervene if they failed to consider relevant matters or considered irrelevant ones. Over time, this was interpreted broadly, allowing decisions to be unwound – particularly where based on incorrect advice.

The reset came with Pitt v Holt and Futter v Futter.

In Pitt, £1.2m of damages was placed into a discretionary trust without considering inheritance tax, creating a £100,000 liability. In Futter, trustees relied on incorrect advice regarding capital gains, leading to unexpected tax.

The Supreme Court significantly narrowed Hastings-Bass. It applies only where there is a breach of fiduciary duty. Trustees relying on professional advice – even if wrong – are not in breach, so their decisions cannot be set aside.

However, equitable mistake remains available. A transaction may be undone where there is a causative mistake of sufficient gravity and it would be unconscionable not to correct it. This is a high bar. Mrs Pitt succeeded on this basis; the trustees in Futter did not.

The message is clear: tax planning must be robust at the outset. Correcting mistakes after the event is now far more difficult. Careful structuring and proper advice are no longer optional – they are essential.

  • tax
  • Law
  • Trustee
  • Common Law
  • Private Law

We specialise in comprehensive tax planning and compliance services tailored specifically for owner-managed businesses and high-net-worth individuals. Our firm provides bespoke tax advisory services:…

Follow us for more articles and posts direct from professionals on      
Company, INVESTOR, Capital Gain, Share (finance)

Investors’ Relief

Investors’ Relief (IR): A Capital Gains Tax relief (distinct from Business Asset Disposal Relief) which may be valuable…
Company, Taxation, Inland Revenue

Company purchase of its own shares

A company purchase of its own shares (CPOS) can be a very effective exit and succession tool. A CPOS is often chosen…
Law, Court, HM Revenue And Customs

HMRC v BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP UKSC 18

On 1 July 2026, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Commissioners for HMRC v BlueCrest Capital Management (UK)…

More Articles

Ratatouille (film)

Motivational quotes

"Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere." Anton Ego in Ratatouille."If you…
Law, Referee, Business, Employment

PGMOL v HMRC ...

After more than a decade of litigation, the long‑running PGMOL v HMRC saga on football referees’ employment status has…
Tax, Taxation, Overprint, Government Finances

2% Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) non-resident surcharge

Understanding the 2% Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) non-resident surcharge is crucial for property transactions. Unlike the…

Would you like to promote an article ?

Post articles and opinions on Oxfordshire Professionals to attract new clients and referrals. Feature in newsletters.
Join for free today and upload your articles for new contacts to read and enquire further.