In C Runham & Ms C Naramore v HMRC (TC00933 – 1 February) a couple purchased a property in March 2010. Their solicitors sent the form SDLT1 and appropriate cheque to HMRC. On 30 April one of the solicitors contacted HMRC because she had not received a certificate of payment (SDLT5). HMRC responded that they had not received the SDLT1 or cheque. The solicitor cancelled the original cheque submitted a new SDLT1 electronically and paid the duty by electronic transfer. HMRC imposed a penalty but the First-Tier Tribunal allowed the couple’s appeal. Judge Tildesley accepted the couple’s evidence and held that despite the statement in HMRC’s Stamp Duty Land Tax Manual SDLTM 86460 the fact that a return had been delayed or lost in the post could constitute a reasonable excuse. He observed that the solicitor ‘had established a...
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 C Runham & Ms C Naramore v HMRC (TC00933 – 1 February) a couple purchased a property in March 2010. Their solicitors sent the form SDLT1 and appropriate cheque to HMRC. On 30 April one of the solicitors contacted HMRC because she had not received a certificate of payment (SDLT5). HMRC responded that they had not received the SDLT1 or cheque. The solicitor cancelled the original cheque submitted a new SDLT1 electronically and paid the duty by electronic transfer. HMRC imposed a penalty but the First-Tier Tribunal allowed the couple’s appeal. Judge Tildesley accepted the couple’s evidence and held that despite the statement in HMRC’s Stamp Duty Land Tax Manual SDLTM 86460 the fact that a return had been delayed or lost in the post could constitute a reasonable excuse. He observed that the solicitor ‘had established a...
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:
