This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more about cookies on this website and how to delete cookies, see our Cookie Policy.
Analytics

Tools which collect anonymous data to enable us to see how visitors use our site and how it performs. We use this to improve our products, services and user experience.

Essential

Tools that enable essential services and functionality, including identity verification, service continuity and site security.

Where Taxpayers and Advisers Meet

NRCGT return

etf
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:58 am

Is this the biggest UK tax system farce ever?

More NRCGT tribunal decisions (I apologise if there are any are duplications-now difficult to keep track):

Ikin x 2-Capital Gains Tax – penalties – late filing of non-resident capital gains tax returns – whether reasonable excuse – whether ignorance of law an excuse – no –– appeals dismissed.

Julie Wickenden-NON-RESIDENT CAPITAL GAINS TAX – penalties for failing to file a return on time – whether ignorance of the obligation to file the return could amount to a reasonable excuse – yes – appeal upheld

David Wickenden-NON-RESIDENT CAPITAL GAINS TAX – penalties for failing to file a return on time – whether ignorance of the obligation to file the return could amount to a reasonable excuse – yes – appeal upheld

Michael Grant-CAPITAL GAINS TAX – penalties – late filing of non-resident capital gains tax returns – appellant accepted the first penalty but challenged the 6 month penalty - whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed.

John Nugent-Capital Gains Tax – penalties – late filing of non-resident capital gains tax returns – whether reasonable excuse – whether ignorance of law is an excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Mr D Gater-CAPITAL GAINS TAX – non-resident CGT return – penalties of £1,300 for failure to file return within 30 days of completion of house sale - whether HMRC have shown penalty due: yes – whether fact that residence status in year of disposal not yet ascertained relevant: no – s 12ZJ TMA applies - whether reliance on third party reasonable excuse: yes whether ignorance of law reasonable excuse: yes, following Perrin in Upper Tribunal – whether paragraph 4 daily penalties purportedly withdrawn remain outstanding - appeal allowed against all penalties, including daily penalties.

Martin Reid-Capital Gains Tax – penalties – late filing of non-resident capital gains tax return – whether reasonable excuse – whether ignorance of law an excuse – yes –appeal allowed

etf
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:19 am

2 admin points regarding the Government tribunal case website:

i) there is no link to the Reid case on the website-potentially an interesting case as Judge Scott usually finds in favour of HMRC when it comes to NRCGT.

ii) the Saunders case uses a different Subcategory than the other NRCGT cases...'disposal' rather than 'other', so easy to overlook.

etf
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:29 am

I think this sums the farce up in 2 short sentences-surely people can get around a table and sort this mess out.

whether ignorance of law an excuse – no –– appeals dismissed.

whether ignorance of law an excuse – yes –appeal allowed

etf
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:07 am

I have received JT's disappointing reply to my second request for HMRC to review the 772 successful NRCGT penalty appeals in the period to 31 December 2017 to establish how many used ignorance of the filing requirement as a reasonable excuse. His response was as follows:

As we have already told you, it would be too costly and resource intensive if we commission a review of all successful penalty appeals to 31 December 2017 for late filed NRCGT returns. Because of this, we will not conduct such exercise.

JT is HMRC's nominated individual responsible for ensuring his department follow the Taxpayers Charter and treat taxpayers even-handedly (fairly). There is clear evidence to suggest identical cases have resulted in totally different outcomes as higlighted in the example below:

I have successfully appealed against a NRCGT penalty. The wording of my letter was as follows and it was accepted without question:

"Further to your email of 17 June 2016, we write to appeal against the penalty of £800 issued to our client for the late submission of the non-resident capital gains tax return.

The circumstances are as follows:-

Our client has been living in Australia since 2012, during which time he rented out his property. The income has been declared on my client’s income tax return each year.

Due to my client’s absence from the UK, he was unaware of the new rules that came into force on 6 April 2015, requiring the CGT return to be completed within 30 days of the date of sale of the property. Hence, no CGT return was completed when the property was sold in November 2015.

When it came to our attention, the non-resident CGT return was filed without delay. You will see from the return that there is no tax due and therefore there has been no loss to HMRC. Both we and our client apologise for the delay in filing the return but are confident that you will be able to see that it was not a deliberate action.

We trust that, in the circumstances, the penalty can be removed.

In the meantime, our client has paid the amount due and so, if our appeal is successful, we should be grateful if this amount could be refunded as soon as possible."


The decrease in the successful NRCGT appeal rate from over 30% to just 3% is further clear evidence that HMRC has probably changed the goalposts and is not dealing with taxpayers in an even-handed manner.

Making mistakes is part and parcel of life, but to attempt to bury your head in the sand when a mistake is highlighted (with credible supporting evidence) is unacceptable. I would strongly argue that HMRC should be recording the reason why appeals are successful in the first place and I've not yet found the section in the Taxpayers Charter which states we will treat you even-handedly as long as it does not cost us too much.

etf
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:07 am

Further to my post on 6 September, the link to the NRCGT case below is still missing (my bold). I've contacted HMRC/Ministry of Justice on three separate occasions, but with zero success. Is this a simple admin error or is there more to it? (perhaps I've watched one too many episodes of the Bodyguard):


Decision Number: TC 06635
Appellant: Martin Reid
Respondent: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Chairmen / Special
Commissioners: Anne SCOTT
Date Of Decision: 21/06/2018
Main Category: CAPITAL GAINS TAX/TAXATION OF CHARGEABLE GAINS
Main Subcategory: Other
Notes: Capital Gains Tax – penalties – late filing of non-resident capital gains tax return – whether reasonable excuse – whether ignorance of law an excuse – yes –appeal allowed
Decision(s) to Download: MISSING LINK

maths
Posts: 7528
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby maths » Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:54 pm

I must confess to having lost the will to live trying to follow all the posts.

Whilst in sympathy with the basic supposition that HMRC are acting unfairly re the NRCGT issue I'm not sure the continual posting of the FTT cases adds anything to the discussion.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2018/TC06635.html

LSH
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:11 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby LSH » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:00 pm

I guess everyone is different.

I greatly appreciated all the links from ETF as I honestly found the court findings really interesting and very helpful when I was researching and trying to defend my own case. Not only did they give me my first glimmer of hope, I was actually able to refer to several points raised by some of the judges (namely about how difficult it was to find any information on the change to NRCGT - virtually nothing was published by HMRC!).

I am one of the lucky ones and finally, at the last breath, HRMC accepted my appeal and dropped the penalty though they had dismissed it several times before that. I would never have achieved that result had it not been for this forum and all the info I managed to glean from it and the links provided. For that I am incredibly grateful to ETF and everyone else who had contributed.

Lambs
Posts: 1418
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:15 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby Lambs » Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:32 am

Seconded.

All credit to ETF for his / her Sterling efforts.

Regards all,

Lambs

etf
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:22 am

Thanks Lambs and LSH for the supportive words.

Thanks too to Maths for providing the link.

I've copied below a headline which prompts the thought where was the major communications campaign for NRCGT?.

With six months to go until the new digital VAT regime goes live, HMRC has launched a major communications campaign to try and build awareness amongst small businesses affected by Making Tax Digital.

Another example of HMRC not dealing with taxpayers in an even-handed manner?

bd6759
Posts: 3067
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:26 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby bd6759 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:00 am

Cutting and pasting blocks of text in different colours and in different font sizes, without fully understanding the principles, does not add to the debate.

Whether there is a reasonable excuse is a subjective test. You cannot treat everyone the same because not everyone is the same. The Upper Tier disagreed with Thomas' view that ignorance was a reasonable excuse, but it had to keep the door open, so it said ignorance can be reasonable excuse. This is because, in a subjective test, nothing can be ruled out unless the law specifically rules it out.

So whilst Janet and John's ignorance might be a reasonable excuse for them, it might not be a reasonable excuse for Tom, Dick or Harry.

Treating everyone even handedly does not mean accepting everything that they say. If that were the case, we would no tax revenues at all.


Return to “Capital Gains Tax, CGT”