Enter Your E-mail

Monthly Tax Review by Matthew Hutton MA, CTA (fellow), AIIT, TEP

Matthew Hutton MA, CTA (fellow), AIIT, TEP author and presenter of Monthly Tax Review, reports on a recent Special Commissioners decision involving CGT main residence relief issues.

Context

The matters for consideration in this case involved both the validity of assessments made by HMRC and the substantive issues of deductible expenses, the size and location of the ‘permitted area’ and whether an apportionment was required to exclude relief for the period before the house became Mr and Mrs Henke’s main residence.

Henke and another v HMRC: the facts

On 25.8.82 Mr and Mrs Henke jointly purchased a freehold plot of land comprising 2.66 acres. They subsequently built a house on the land which became their main residence in June 1993. In July 1995 they obtained planning permission for two dwelling-houses to be built in front of their house. On 15.10.99, ‘plot 1’, an area of 0.54 acres, was sold for £171,000 and on 15.3.01 ‘plot 2’, an area of 0.54 acres, was sold for £230,000, and houses were built on both plots.

On 15.4.00 Mr and Mrs Henke, in accordance with their usual practice, completed Forms R40 for 1999/2000. Each ticked Box B, which contained the words ‘Tick this box and we will send you a form R40(CG) to complete’, to indicate that they had disposed of assets for more than twice the annual exempt amount for CGT purposes, and submitted their forms. As Mr and Mrs Henke received no response from HMRC, they telephoned a separate tax office for advice and were supplied with Forms SA108. Mr and Mrs Henke duly completed Forms SA108 showing that plot 1 had been sold for £171,000 and claiming that full relief was due under TCGA 1992 s222.

Following an exchange of correspondence relating to the status of Forms R40, on 25.7.01 HMRC wrote to Mr and Mrs Henke stating ‘Our enquiry into your tax affairs for the year 1999/2000 should have been opened properly and in line with our best practice. Unfortunately this did not happen ... A legal enquiry does however exist’. On 26.1.02 Mr and Mrs Henke submitted Forms R40 for 2000/01, together with completed Forms SA108 showing the disposal of Plot 2 for £230,000, divided equally between them and claiming full relief under s222. HMRC issued self-assessment returns to Mr and Mrs Henke for that year which they duly submitted on 9.12.02 and on 4.2.03 HMRC issued a notice of enquiry into those returns.

On 28.10.03 HMRC wrote to each appellant indicating that enquiries into their Form R40 had been completed and enclosing notices of assessment for 1999/2000 each showing assessable capital gains of £60,449 on the disposal of plot 1 and tax payable of £18,579.60. On the same date HMRC wrote to each appellant indicating that enquiries into their tax returns for 2000/01 had been completed and concluding that a chargeable gain arose on the sale of Plot 2 as main residence relief did not cover the whole of the gain. For Mr Henke the amendment to his return resulted in an increase in tax due of £24,910.80 with an amended self assessment of £24,258.80 tax due. For Mrs Henke, the amendment resulted in an increase in tax due of £24,446.40 with an amended self assessment of £23,794.40 tax due. On 18.11.03 Mr and Mrs Henke appealed against the notices of assessment for 1999/2000 and the enquiry conclusions for 2000/01.

The decision: SpC (John Clarke)

Determinations on each of the issues were made in principle. The final figures were to be agreed or determined.

(1) On the question of the validity of the assessments for 1999/2000 and the enquiry into the 2000/01 returns, Mr Clarke found that Mr and Mrs Henke did not make ‘returns’ for 1999/2000, as Form R40 was only a form to claim a repayment of income tax and did not constitute a return and similarly merely submitting the Form SA108 did not amount to a return (applying Osborne (decd) v Dickinson (Inspector of Taxes) [2004] STC (SCD) 104). He interpreted the position as involving an enquiry into Mr and Mrs Henke's tax affairs as a result of the claims made in the Forms R40 and the information subsequently provided by them (in the SA108 pages) as to their capital gains disposals. Thus the enquiry was into the R40 repayment claims, and the implications for those of the capital gains which HMRC considered them to have made. The correspondence generally did not relate to a ‘claim’ for relief under TCGA 1992 s222.

However, in the absence of a return, TMA 1970 s29(1) permitted an assessment to be made without the need to consider s29(2) or (3); it was simply necessary for an officer of the Board to ‘discover’ that (in the present case) chargeable gains which ought to have been assessed to CGT had not been assessed. Although the correspondence did not refer to the assessments as discovery assessments, nor did they refer to the loss of tax, they were properly made pursuant to TMA 1970 s29, and were therefore valid discovery assessments.

It followed from the conclusions in respect of the 1999/2000 assessments that Mr Clarke also found that the Forms R40 and the accompanying SA108 pages for 2000/01 did not constitute ‘returns’ for that year. Mr and Mrs Henke did not make returns for 2000/01 until 9.12.02. Notice of the enquiry was issued on 4.2.03, which was within the enquiry window applying under TMA 1970 s9A(2)(b). There was no difficulty with the fact that there might have been prior discussions about the disposal; the enquiry could only be into a ‘return’, and events before the return was issued could not be taken into account. The enquiry was properly closed pursuant to TMA 1970 s28A. Therefore the amendments to Mr and Mrs Henke's returns for 2000/01 on the conclusion of the enquiry were validly made.

Mr Clarke expressed concern at the unsatisfactory way in which HMRC had dealt with the whole subject of the 1999/2000 capital gains. Forms R40 were not suitable for taxpayers with more substantial capital gains. Where the taxpayer had ticked the relevant box, that should result in an immediate request for further information. If the gain was likely to be substantial, the proper course would be to issue a SA return to the taxpayer, rather than attempting to deal with the matter by using Form R40(CG).

(2) As regards the allocation of allowable costs, the conditions for a part disposal were clearly met on each disposal. TCGA 1992 s42 governed the attribution and, where appropriate, the apportionment of expenditure in relation to part disposals. S42(4) made it clear that an apportionment was not to be made where on the facts the expenditure was wholly attributable to what was disposed of, or wholly attributable to what remained undisposed of. What that meant in the present case was that, unless any of the expenditure on building the house and its garage could be regarded as having been reflected in either or both of plot 1 and plot 2, it could not be taken into account under s38 as an allowable deduction in computing the gains on the sale of those plots. Preferring not to give a general ruling as to deductibility (so as to avoid the possibility of further disagreement between the parties), Mr Clarke agreed most of the categorisations of costs listed in the schedule to the statement of facts not in dispute and confirmed that all the expenses that might be deducted from the sale proceeds of plot 1 or 2 would be subject to indexation allowance.

(3) The ‘permitted area’ test in s222(1)(b) was to be applied by reference to what was required in the circumstances prevailing at the time of the disposal, and was an objective one. There were two distinct tests for a house and a garden. In relation to a house, the test for only or main residence was ‘at any time’. For land, the test was whether it was a garden or grounds at the time of disposal. If a house ceased to be an only or main residence, the garden would not qualify. If both house and garden met the respective tests at the time of disposal, the grounds would qualify whatever their previous use. Mr Clarke held that in the present case the permitted area was on both occasions 0.82 of a hectare (2.03 acres) and the apportionment of the sales proceeds of the plots sold should be on the basis of the respective areas of the non-exempt and the exempt areas.

(4) On the issue of the period of ownership and main residence relief, Mr Clarke held that, as Mr and Mrs Henke did not own the house until 1993 but had owned the land (as legal owners and beneficial joint tenants of the freehold) since 1982, an apportionment was required under TCGA 1992 s223(2) to limit the relief because they did not meet the ‘throughout the period of ownership’ condition in s223(1). The Parliamentary intention behind the legislation was clear; there was to be only one period of ownership of the single asset consisting of the land and any buildings which might be erected on it during that period. Where, as in the present case, land was held for a period and subsequently a house was built on it and occupied as the individual's only or main residence, an apportionment was required.

(Henke and Another v Revenue and Customs Commissioners 2.5.06 SpC 550 reported at [2006] STI Issue 28)

Matthew Hutton MA, CTA (fellow), AIIT, TEP
July 2006

About Monthly Tax Review (MTR)

MTR is a 90 minute monthly training course, held in London, Ipswich and Norwich – as well as a reference work. Each Issue records the most significant tax developments over a wide range of subjects (see below) during the previous month, containing 30 to 40 items. The aim is not necessarily to take the place of the journals, but rather to provide an easily digestible summary of them and, through the six-monthly Indexes, to build up, over the years, a useful reference work.

Who should come to MTR? Does it attract CPD?

MTR is designed not primarily for the person who spends 100% of his/her time on tax, but rather for the practitioner (whether private client or company/commercial) for whom tax issues form part of his/her practice. Attendance at MTR qualifies for 1.5 CPD hours for members of the Law Society, for 1.5 CPD points for accountants (if MTR is considered relevant to the delegate’s practice) and (subject to the individual’s self-certification) should also count towards training requirements for the CIOT. For STEP purposes, MTR qualifies for CPD in principle, on the grounds that at least 50% of the content is trust and estate related.

How is MTR circulated?

The Notes are emailed to each delegate in the week before the presentations (and thus can easily be circulated around the office), with a follow-up page or two of practical points arising during the various sessions (whether in London, Ipswich or Norwich).

How do I find out more?
For further details, and for those whose firms unable to make the monthly seminars but wishing to order MTR as 'Notes Only' (at £180 per annum for the 12 issues, invoiced six-monthly in advance), click here.