A link below to the latest NRCGT tribunal ruling (Pidcock)
Perhaps it is time to introduce VAR
into the FTT hearings because some of the statements from some of the judges suggest they are reading from an HMRC press release.
Two examples of such statements are copied below:
That is unfortunate. HMRC did publicise the changes very widely in the
“As regards the solicitor, I do not think that there is any evidence that Mr Hart had engaged the
solicitor to provide comprehensive tax advice in relation to the disposal of the Property. It is
usual for a solicitor to advise in relation to stamp duty land tax returns, but I think it would be
unusual for a conveyancing solicitor, unless explicitly instructed to do so, to advise more
broadly on tax issues. On this basis, I do not think there are any grounds for concluding that
Mr Hart could reasonably have been expected to receive advice from the solicitor in relation to
the need to file a NRCGT return”.
Sadly, the HMRC press release had overlooked the previous contradictory Government response flagged by Someone below:
c) In the government's response to that they state "There will be no obligation on those involved in the transaction to collect tax due, but the government expects that it is likely they will facilitate the process"!!
Nobody is expecting the legal advisers to provide chapter and verse about the NRCGT return, but surely they do have a duty of care to flag the 30 day filing requirement to their clients as the Government has clearly indicated above.