Farmers seek judicial review over inheritance tax clampdown

A group of farmers and family business owners challenges reforming the controversial inheritance tax of the government in the court, claiming that the ministers failed to properly consult before announcing comprehensive changes in the autumn budget.

The legal claim, which worked on Tuesday for Chancellor Rachel Reeves and HMRC, calls for a judicial review of the government’s decision to the maximum tax exemptions for the long tax exemptions for agricultural lands and the family without full general advice.

The challenge aims to change relief from agricultural property (APR) and relief from commercial property (BPR) – two major tax exemptions that allowed decades, farms and small companies to pass assets without incurring inheritance tax. Under new rules that are scheduled to enter into force in April 2026, the common value of protected assets will be determined by the inscriptions in the amount of one million pounds, and the ministers that the ministers say are necessary to address the avoidance of taxes among the very wealthy.

The claimants, which are represented by the law firm, argue that the government has a legal commitment to make appropriate consultations on major tax changes – which they say has been rejected for the most affected sectors.

“This claim does not seek to turn the government’s decision to amend APR or BPR,” said James Austin, a partner in Coller Presto. “It simply asks that the affected individuals and groups can contribute to an appropriate consultation process to ensure the government gets the best possible evidence when developing the tax policy of farms and companies in the United Kingdom.”

The process of getting rid of the inheritance tax caused a stir among farmers, who called the repairs to the “family farm tax”, warning that it may endanger generations and forced the sale of agricultural lands to cover tax bills.

Family businesses in the United Kingdom, which represents the family -run companies, have also condemned this step. It is estimated that the changes may expose 200,000 jobs at risk, as small and medium -sized companies convert money from investment to meet the obligatory obligations on the horizon.

Rachel Reeves defended the changes as a fair and necessary update of the tax system, claiming that the inscriptions were exploited by wealthy land owners and investors to avoid the inheritance tax completely. The treasury insists that the majority of farms and regular companies will remain protected by current exemptions – such as relief from spouses and the ability to pay tax bills in installments over a decade.

However, critics argue that the participation of the limited government with the affected sectors – which is limited to the narrow technical feeding process – is no less than the appropriate consultation.

The judicial review request says that the decision to overcome full advice “risk a defective legislation” and can undermine the long -term feasibility of agricultural institutions and family institutions.

The legal procedure follows a similar challenge to impose value -added tax on private school fees, which was rejected earlier this month. While the Supreme Court admitted that policy could violate the rights of some students, it has found that this has been outperformed by the broader public benefit of increasing the financing of public schools.

Although the judicial review does not seek to cancel tax changes directly, it adds to the increasing pressure on the treasury to review how the main sectors share the main tax repairs.

Industry leaders argue that weak risk undermines confidence in the process of government policy -making – and may eventually damage vital parts of the British economy.

The Treasury did not immediately respond to the request for comment.