In B & K Lavery Property Trading Partnership v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 470 the FTT found that the FTT had jurisdiction to hear issues not specifically identified in the closure notice.
B & K was appealing against HMRC’s disallowance of a net realisable value adjustment in relation to two properties. The claim for the decline in value of the properties required two conditions to be met: the properties must have been trading stock (as opposed to investment assets); and the partnership must have been trading in the year in which the loss relief was claimed.
The closure notice had been confined to the trading issue and B & K contended that the FTT only had jurisdiction to hear an appeal on this point; however HMRC had put its case solely on the basis of the trading stock issue. The issue was...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In B & K Lavery Property Trading Partnership v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 470 the FTT found that the FTT had jurisdiction to hear issues not specifically identified in the closure notice.
B & K was appealing against HMRC’s disallowance of a net realisable value adjustment in relation to two properties. The claim for the decline in value of the properties required two conditions to be met: the properties must have been trading stock (as opposed to investment assets); and the partnership must have been trading in the year in which the loss relief was claimed.
The closure notice had been confined to the trading issue and B & K contended that the FTT only had jurisdiction to hear an appeal on this point; however HMRC had put its case solely on the basis of the trading stock issue. The issue was...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
2734558d-601b-48a3-8ae3-ae3513a00429.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=1fc4692d_1)
