Drown & anr (as Executors of Leadley Deceased) v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 892 (TC)
June 2015 #150Prior to his death on 11 May 2010, the deceased had bought £25,000 of shares in two companies and made a loan of £334,784.00 to a third company. It was accepted by HMRC that by 5 April 2010 the shareholdings were of negligible value. The loan to the third company had become irrecoverable as of 3 November 2009. The deceased’s 2009/2010 tax return was submitted by the appellants who were the deceased’s executors. Capital losses of £384,784.00 were reported and a claim to offset £40,000 against the deceased’s income was made. It was accepted by HMRC that the deceased would...
Seesurrun & anr v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 783 (TC)
January/February 2015 #146The appellants appealed against decisions by the respondent that income of certain non-UK entities (including settlements established in the Isle of Man) could be attributed to them pursuant to s739 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (ICTA), which concerns the prevention of avoidance of income tax by individuals ordinarily resident in the UK by means of transfer of assets abroad.
The appellants owned three companies which carried on the trade of providing residential care to the elderly in the UK (the UK companies). The UK companies operated from four p...
H A Patel and K Patel (a partnership) v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 167 (TC)
September 2014 #142The appellants had established a remuneration trust by a trust deed dated 26 March 2010 and of which they were the protectors. As such, they had the power to appoint and remove trustees, including Bay Trust International Ltd (the trustee). On the day of its establishment, the appellants applied to the trustee for loans of £550,000 which were duly advanced the same day. They were also directors of GSA Investments Ltd, a UK company to which the trustee (via another company in Belize) delegated powers to invest the trust funds.
The respondent issued an information notice dated 14 Se...
Parry & ors v HMRC Appeal number: TC/2012/7106
September 2014 #142Under the terms of her divorce settlement, Mrs Staveley (the deceased) received a share of a company pension scheme. She was advised that her only option was to transfer this to a ‘s32 buyout’ policy. Under this policy funds could revert to the company which would potentially benefit her ex-husband. The divorce had been acrimonious and she desperately wanted to avoid that happening. However, it became apparent that the s32 policy was her only option and in July 2000 she transferred her fund of £571,715 to the s32 policy. Evidence demonstrated that the deceased remained unhapp...
Best v HMRC
April 2014 #138The appellant was the executor of Alfred Buller. On Mr Buller’s death there was a transfer of value of 25,000 shares in Bullick Developments (1986) Ltd (the company). The company owned and managed the Valley Business Centre (the business centre). HMRC determined pursuant to s221 Inheritance Tax Act 1985 (the IHTA 1985) that the shares in the company were not relevant business property for the purposes of s104 IHTA 1984, having regard to s105(3) IHTA 1984, which prevents inter alia shares in a business whose activities mainly or wholly consist of ...
Wagstaff & anr v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 43 (TC)
April 2014 #138During 1990 Mr Wagstaff’s mother (Barbara) bought a flat for herself to live in (the flat). On 6 January 1996 she sold the flat to the appellants for £45,000. It was agreed that this was an arm’s length price. The sale was subject to the terms of an agreement of the same date (the agreement). The agreement provided that Barbara was entitled to continue to live at the flat at no cost until her death or remarriage, subject to a payment of £5,000.
Barbara continued to occupy the property until August 2005 when an accident meant she could no longer do so. After some time ...
Behague v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 596 (TC)
March 2014 #137HMRC opened an enquiry into Mr Behague’s (the appellant) self-assessment return and issued a notice to the appellant under para 1 of sch 36 of the Finance Act 2008. This notice requested the provision, to HMRC, of a client engagement letter and a report issued to the appellant by his solicitors. The appellant appealed this notice and claimed legal professional privilege (LLP) applied to the documents.
HMRC accepted that communications between a solicitor and his client were privileged to the extent they related to the giving or obtaining of legal advice, however HM...
Mariner v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 657 (TC)
March 2014 #137Elizabeth Mariner (the appellant) instructed a professional tax advisor to complete and file her 2011 income tax return with HMRC. She was making losses on a let property. The return set these losses against her income from other sources. HMRC did not accept that the losses could be ‘set-off’ in this way. A penalty for underpaid tax as the result of the careless or negligent completion...
Rosenbaum (dec’d) v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 495 (TC)
March 2014 #137The appellant filed a paper tax return late and was liable to a penalty but appealed, arguing that it was merely intended to be a copy of a tax return subsequently filed online and in time. The respondent’s proposition was accepted that a subsequent online timely filing of a tax return by 31 January did not relieve a taxpayer, who had filed a valid paper tax return after 31 October, from a penalty. However, although the nature of the paper document which had been filed was in dispute and central to the issues between the parties, the respondent, on whom the burden of proof lay, fai...
Taylor (dec’d) v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 483 (TC)
March 2014 #137Mr J G Taylor was appointed as the executor of his father’s estate. HMRC wrote to Mr Taylor and asked him whether he wished to complete a full return or complete a form R27 to deal with his father’s final tax affairs. Mr Taylor chose to complete a form R27 and returned this. Correspondence between the parties ensued and three calculations were issued. Each was headed as a ‘calculation’. Mr Taylor was unhappy with the final calculation and appealed to the tribunal.
HMRC submitted that there was no appealable decision as the figures were calculations not for...