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.

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.


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

Where Taxpayers and Advisers Meet

NRCGT return

Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:06 pm
Location: West Sussex

Re: NRCGT return

Postby pawncob » Wed Jan 30, 2019 1:28 pm

Does the FTT appellant have a name?
Hellier only had one CGT case in 2018.
With a pinch of salt take what I say, but don't exceed your RDA

Posts: 1023
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 3:47 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby AGoodman » Wed Jan 30, 2019 1:43 pm

Maybe - and I am just speculating - Judge Hellier only made a summary decision in that case and the tribunal do not publish those 9also speculation on my part).
His other June CGT case mentioned by pawncob was only published when the taxpayer appealed and so he had to produce a full written judgement.

There would be little point in publishing summary decisions if they don't contain the facts or analysis.

Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:47 pm

Thank you both for replying.

My knowledge of the workings of the judiciary is at a level equivalent to West Ham's recent performance at AFC Wimbledon (not good!).

I have however followed bd6759's suggestion and contacted the Gov' website to establish why that NRCGT decision is apparently missing in action. As Judge Hellier has only had one CGT tribunal case published in the last 5 and a bit years, I had thought it would be a simple thing to trace, but that does not appear to be true. I will however persist and will update the thread when I have some further news.

I do intend to summarise the successful NRCGT appeal rates since inception in the next few days, because that 79% figure is just off the scale (says 79% of reviewed appeals but doesn't provide a number). In the previous quarter the successful appeal rate was just 6% (doesn't look even-handed Sir Jon).

Posts: 22
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 1:27 am

Re: NRCGT return

Postby rbk123 » Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:44 am

Yes we have names. Judge Hellier heard both our cases together as the circumstances were identical. Our appeal was heard on 11 Jun 18 and released to us on 18 Jun 18. We had to contact the FTT by email to get the full written judgement. This was released on 29 Oct 18. We have emailed 3 times pointing out the omission from the website. It is neither fixed nor has any explanation been forthcoming.
In his findings the judge says that we behaved reasonably and to have done much more we would be regarded as “perfect taxpayers”. This is in complete contradiction to HMRCs ruling in our case. HMRC had at least 3 different staff members look at the same information that we presented to the FTT.
HMRCs defence is nearly always, “ignorance is no excuse” The judge looked at how this failure had come about. i.e. HMRCs failed publicity campaign.
We have informed HMRC that we will be taking legal action against one of their employees ( Esther Boyd ) for defamation as she basically put in writing that we were lying. HMRC say the employee was acting on their behalf. We have asked to see the guidelines issued to HMRC employees to help them reach a decision for /against a taxpayer and to specifically point out where defamation of character is allowed. No response. HMRC must learn that there are consequences for their actions and such behaviour is unacceptable.
We have forwarded the full transcript of our cases together with our arguments to others , when requested , to help them fight their cases at FTT level against HMRC.

Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:56 am

It sounds to me as though someone is attempting to block publication of these cases.

I've copied below my email to the Gov's tax tribunal decisions website sent on Thursday:

Thank you for your reply.

I’ve close to zero knowledge of the workings of the judiciary, but had anticipated that all NRCGT tribunal case decisions would be listed on your website.

We know Judge Hellier heard a NRCGT case on 11 June 2018, but that case is not listed on your website. This makes me wonder, are there lots of NRCGT tribunal cases that do not get published, or is this case peculiar, and if it is peculiar, why is that so and will it ever get published?

I look forward to receiving your reply.

I'm also double checking whether 79% was a typo.

Glad this thread was not closed down. As Barry Davies would say...'interesting, very interesting'. Lee time to get your pencil out to complete the trilogy?

Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:27 pm

Bombshell after bombshell:

I can confirm 79% is correct, it is not a typo. The sentence “…percentage of reviewed appeals accepted was 79%” refers to all appeals accepted during the three month period. It is not an accepted percentage breakdown for the “…number of appeals received in the 3 months ending 31/12/18 was 102”

We processed more than just the appeals received in that three month period; we would have had work carried over from the preceding months.

Even HMRC's most ardent supporters must be scratching their heads how the successful appeal rate has increased from 6% to 79% in two successive quarters. How can Sir Jon continue to claim HMRC treat taxpayers even-handedly?

I think we nearly have a complete plot for John Grisham's next novel.

Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:59 pm

And the data to support the 79% successful NRCGT appeal percentage is as follows:

Sure. For the three months ending 31 December 2018, 242 appeals were processed, of which 191 were accepted. Not all of those processed were received in the three month period.

If I were Dr Wong or one of the many others who have fallen foul of HMRC's inconsistent NRCGT appeal regime (94% of appeals failed in the previous quarter), I would understandably be incandescent with rage. Somebody needs to hold HMRC to account and make them review all of their historical appeal work/remedy any defects where they have not treated taxpayers even-handedly as they are required to do.

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

Re: NRCGT return

Postby LSH » Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:23 pm

Another bit to add to the tale of HMRC woe.

I just today received a letter from them dated 23 May 2018 - so a mere 9 months late. This was rejecting my appeal (goodness knows which one actually as there were so many botch ups on my case). Thankfully, using the incredibly helpful advice on here, I had by June / July 2018 started using the email address for HMRC and contacted my MP too. So luckily for me, I wasn't hanging on waiting for this rejection letter. (Also noting that one of their other letters to me also went astray to South America from the looks of it taking also over 6 months to arrive!). I also finally got a positive result to my appeal in July last year but this delayed letter brought all the horror flooding back!

Sadly no date on the franked 'priority' stamp / franking on the envelope though, so I can't see if this had been lying around somewhere in an office rather than being sent. Really terrible service though and that's more than twice it happened to me alone.....

Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:15 pm

I've managed to obtain a copy of the missing NRCGT tribunal decision which has still not been published on the Gov' website (and perhaps never will...see below).

I asked HM Courts and Tribunals Service for the reason why this case has not been published despite three chasing emails from the Appellant and received the following reply:

I can make no comment on any requests to publish this decision as that is a matter for the individual Appellants and the Tribunal.

Now assuming neither Appellant (husband and wife) has asked for the decision not to be published (appears unlikely given the husband has been active in trying to get the decision published), I must conclude the Tribunal has made a decision not to publish it. Why would it do that?

Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Thu Feb 28, 2019 11:20 am

As promised here are the percentages for successful NRCGT appeals:

6 April 15 to 7 May 16-No penalties/unpublicised amnesty
8 May 16 to 31 March 17-32%
12 months to 31 March 18-16%
3 months to 30 June 18-3%
3 months to 30 September 18-6%
3 months to 31 December 18-79%

Does anyone still disagree with my thought that HMRC has failed to deal with taxpayers even-handedly? If you consider I'm a deranged nut-case, please let me know where you believe my analysis is flawed.

I have also copied below part of HMRC's Taxpayer Charter offering which confirms taxpayers have a right to be treated even-handedly:

1. Your rights - what you can expect from us
1.1 Respect you and treat you as honest. We’ll treat you even-handedly,

I suspect HMRC has made a decision to try and bury all the negative NRCGT publicity and accept appeals which is fine, but to follow the Charter, Sir Jon must treat all taxpayers even-handedly which means reviewing cases which have not resulted in the same outcome.

HMRC has a number of illustrious non-executive directors and I have copied below a description of a non-execs role:

Essentially the non-executive director's (NED) role is to provide a creative contribution to the board by providing independent oversight and constructive challenge to the executive directors.

Let us hope the non-executive directors detailed in the link above can constructively challenge Sir Jon on the Taxpayers Charter so the apparent denial of taxpayer rights is remedied.

Return to “Capital Gains Tax, CGT”