Hay bales and tax tales

• During the Autumn Budget 2024, the government announced reforms to the long-standing availability of 100% Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) on qualifying assets. The proposal set out a combined APR/BPR non-transferable cap of £1 million per-person on qualifying assets (with 50% relief applying over the £1 million threshold).
• HM Revenue and Customs subsequently conducted an 8-week technical consultation from 27 February to 23 April 2025.
• The final reforms, now enacted and effective from 6 April 2026, provide that the first £2.5 million of qualifying assets in an estate will benefit from 100% combined APR and BPR (with 50% relief applying over the £2.5 million threshold). Any unused part of the £2.5 million allowance is transferrable to a surviving spouse.

R (Martin) v Chancellor of the Exchequer [2026] EWHC 1123 (Admin)

The Claimants, who were two long standing farmers, Thomas and George Martin, together with the campaign group Farmers and Businesses for Fair Tax Reliefs brought a judicial review claim challenging the lawfulness of the government’s technical consultation procedure, rather than the APR/BPR reforms themselves.

They argued that the consultation was too narrow, focusing on the impact of the reforms on trust property rather than consulting more widely, including seeking views from those most affected. In support of their claim, they relied on the 2011 Tax Consultation Framework and other related policy documents, arguing that the government had created a ‘legitimate expectation’ of a full and meaningful consultation on the substance of significant tax changes, and therefore the failure to consult, or to do so adequately, was unlawful.

However, the Divisional Court (Lady Justice Whipple and Mr Justice Fordham) refused permission for judicial review on the basis that:

• No legitimate expectation: The government’s materials were general, amounting to political commitments rather than a clear and unambiguous promise to consult on the substance of tax changes.
• Delay: The claim was brought out of time.
• Non-justiciability/parliamentary privilege: The consultation formed part of the legislation and judicial scrutiny would interfere with Parliament’s constitutional role in making legislation.

If you would like to discuss estate planning options following APR/BPR reforms, please contact the Private Client and Agricultural & Landed Estates teams at wealth@wansbroughs.com.