In E Allchin v HMRC (TC02613 – 4 April) an individual (E) purchased a property in 2007. The Land Registry records (form TR1) recorded the purchase price as £2 450 000. However E submitted a form SDLT1 declaring the purchase price as £356 250. When HMRC discovered this they issued a discovery assessment charging SDLT on the difference. E appealed contending that he had taken advantage of a ‘mitigation scheme’ within FA 2003 s 45(3) whereby the property had originally been purchased by a limited company (AI) and he had subsequently been substituted as the purchaser by a deed of novation. The FTT dismissed the appeal applying the principles laid down in Vardy Properties v HMRC [2012] SFTD 1398 and holding that s 45 did not apply. Judge Khan held that AI ‘never acquired a chargeable interest in the property nor 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 E Allchin v HMRC (TC02613 – 4 April) an individual (E) purchased a property in 2007. The Land Registry records (form TR1) recorded the purchase price as £2 450 000. However E submitted a form SDLT1 declaring the purchase price as £356 250. When HMRC discovered this they issued a discovery assessment charging SDLT on the difference. E appealed contending that he had taken advantage of a ‘mitigation scheme’ within FA 2003 s 45(3) whereby the property had originally been purchased by a limited company (AI) and he had subsequently been substituted as the purchaser by a deed of novation. The FTT dismissed the appeal applying the principles laid down in Vardy Properties v HMRC [2012] SFTD 1398 and holding that s 45 did not apply. Judge Khan held that AI ‘never acquired a chargeable interest in the property nor 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:
