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

LSH
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:11 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby LSH » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:46 am

I agree with RBK re the emailing.

When I contacted my MP that also started things off where the HMRC team emailed me rather than waiting for post which can take months. (Actually it was advised on here some time back to write to my MP, and for one reason and another, I dithered. I actually thought (naively) that I would give HMRC the chance to see reason first, though that did me no good at all! In fact I was given wrong information several times on their phone helplines ("no charges showing as due on your account" and the letters didn't arrive for 6 months in some cases).

So if anyone is just reading this forum and not posting yet - my biggest bit of advice is to follow what RBK originally said, and contact your MP. If nothing else, it will allow the correspondence to be a lot more timely and not have you waiting and panicking for ages when 'appeal' deadlines are missed by postal delays.

Also I too used the info from RBK to cc the CEO into my last correspondence with them.

ETF you raise some interesting points. I raised in my letter the point that came out in SCOWCROFT that they had used a 'soft touch' in the first 13 months "to allow people to get familiar" with the law. It would follow that this meant they DID use "ignorance of the law" as a defence in those months when "people were getting familiar" with it!

I am also still interested to know too exactly whose responsibility it is to publish and advertise new(and significant!) tax law changes. I would have thought it was HMRC's role but can't find anything showing whose role it is at all. (Far too many non-related hits come up when I try to search for 'responsibility' 'law' 'HMRC' 'publish' etc)

etf
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:21 am

A link below to the latest NRCGT tribunal ruling (Pidcock)

http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//judgmentfiles/j10552/TC06590.pdf

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
UK.
“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.

etf
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:12 am

I'd also add if finding information on NRCGT filings is so easy, why did the Judge overlook this key piece of evidence?
Whilst I sympathise with the appellants, they chose to invest in a property in the
UK and they did not check their obligations in terms of the Tax Acts when they came
to dispose of it. In most countries in the world, tax law changes on what can be an
alarmingly regular basis. A prudent taxpayer would have checked. It was easy to
check and, as the appellants state, they were able to file the return very shortly after
having done so.

Using her own perfect world standards, a prudent Judge would have uncovered this statement. Of course in reality neither is easy to uncover, but if she is going to punish unsuspecting taxpayers by setting the bar so high....I'll say no more.

LSH
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:11 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby LSH » Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:21 am

EFT - I couldn't agree more.

In my letter to HMRC I stated that the ONLY reason I had been able to find any of the items on their timeline after the fact (as actually none of the links worked in it either!), was since I had all the exact and relevant search terms in front of me and dates by using the same language they used in their Timeline. Clearly someone who is just doing a basic check and online search would NOT be availed of such pertinent words and search terms and wouldn't even be aware that the documents exist anyway.

For example - until I started this whole debacle I wouldn't have even known that 'NRCGT' was a pertinent term! I think I only found that out from there being a reference on the SA form if memory serves correct!

I find all of this entirely staggering and I wish that my letter that outlines the woeful attempt to 'publicise' this could get a reading by all those judges. (Can't quite believe how lucky I am in the meantime that they accepted my case).

someone
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:09 am

Re: NRCGT return

Postby someone » Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:45 pm

I have just discovered that the government is planning something similar for residents from 2020. The 'nil return' problem won't happen but the tax will be due in 30 days. (and so lots more penalties)

So keep up the good fight. This thread will get a lot more attention in 18 months or so.

etf
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:40 pm

A link below to another NRCGT Tribunal case presided over by Anne Scott (Cobb and Wren) with a predictable result.

http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//Aspx/view.aspx?id=10520

What is clear is people with the same situation are either being fined the full amount or having their penalties cancelled i.e. the farce continues. This cannot be right because the Taxpayers Charter states taxpayers will be treated even-handedly (fairly). HMRC is clearly aware this is happening, but to date has taken no action to attempt to resolve this crazy situation.

etf
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:05 am

Doubtless, another dose of common sense from Judge Richard Thomas in the link below detailing how two taxpayers defeated HMRC at a recent NRCGT tribunal (Bradshaw x 2). And we still have another HMRC defeat from Judge Charles Hillier to look forward to:

http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//Aspx/view.aspx?id=10544

HMRC's offical response from Darstardly and Muttley to the Bradshaw decision is shown below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXKJolS9Atg

How long will Jon Thompson allow this farce to continue?


Return to “Capital Gains Tax, CGT”