In Chartridge Developments v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 766 (16 November 2016) the FTT found that only one of five penalties imposed by HMRC for the late filing of the annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED) returns was due.
Chartridge was a property development company. As it owned UK residential property it was on the face of it within the charge to ATED although an exemption applies to property development companies.
Chartridge had not submitted its ATED returns for 2013/14 and HMRC had imposed penalties. The FTT found that some of the penalties should be cancelled as the notices were invalid because they contained the wrong date for the filing of the ATED returns. This left one valid penalty notice and the issue was whether the company’s reliance on its accountant had constituted a reasonable excuse under FA 2009 Sch...
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 Chartridge Developments v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 766 (16 November 2016) the FTT found that only one of five penalties imposed by HMRC for the late filing of the annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED) returns was due.
Chartridge was a property development company. As it owned UK residential property it was on the face of it within the charge to ATED although an exemption applies to property development companies.
Chartridge had not submitted its ATED returns for 2013/14 and HMRC had imposed penalties. The FTT found that some of the penalties should be cancelled as the notices were invalid because they contained the wrong date for the filing of the ATED returns. This left one valid penalty notice and the issue was whether the company’s reliance on its accountant had constituted a reasonable excuse under FA 2009 Sch...
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:
