There have been a number of instances recently in SDLT where taxpayers and their advisers have relied on published HMRC guidance in order to self-assess their SDLT liability only to find that the guidance is later disowned by HMRC as ‘wholly wrong’ or simply changed in a way that undermines the approach adopted by the taxpayer when structuring his transaction in reliance on the original guidance.
A good example of the former is HMRC’s published guidance on mixed-use properties where for 16 years or more only land sold with a dwelling that was necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the dwelling was regarded as residential with the balance treated as non-residential. The presence of the non-residential element led to a much lower tax charge on the...
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:
There have been a number of instances recently in SDLT where taxpayers and their advisers have relied on published HMRC guidance in order to self-assess their SDLT liability only to find that the guidance is later disowned by HMRC as ‘wholly wrong’ or simply changed in a way that undermines the approach adopted by the taxpayer when structuring his transaction in reliance on the original guidance.
A good example of the former is HMRC’s published guidance on mixed-use properties where for 16 years or more only land sold with a dwelling that was necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the dwelling was regarded as residential with the balance treated as non-residential. The presence of the non-residential element led to a much lower tax charge on the...
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: