In Ms C Browne v HMRC (TC00754 – 8 November) a woman (B) completed the purchase of a flat in August 2009. She had instructed a firm of solicitors to carry out the conveyancing. However they failed to submit the relevant land transaction return to HMRC until 28 October. HMRC imposed a penalty and B appealed.The First-Tier Tribunal allowed her appeal finding that ‘the solicitors concerned were ‘intervened into’ (ie closed down) by the Solicitors Regulation Authority’. Judge Brooks observed that ‘although reliance on a third party is specifically precluded from being a reasonable excuse for VAT purposes’ (see VATA 1994 s 71) FA 2003 did not contain a similar provision with regard to SDLT. On the facts of this case B’s reliance on the solicitors constituted a reasonable excuse.
Why it matters: This case is notable...
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 Ms C Browne v HMRC (TC00754 – 8 November) a woman (B) completed the purchase of a flat in August 2009. She had instructed a firm of solicitors to carry out the conveyancing. However they failed to submit the relevant land transaction return to HMRC until 28 October. HMRC imposed a penalty and B appealed.The First-Tier Tribunal allowed her appeal finding that ‘the solicitors concerned were ‘intervened into’ (ie closed down) by the Solicitors Regulation Authority’. Judge Brooks observed that ‘although reliance on a third party is specifically precluded from being a reasonable excuse for VAT purposes’ (see VATA 1994 s 71) FA 2003 did not contain a similar provision with regard to SDLT. On the facts of this case B’s reliance on the solicitors constituted a reasonable excuse.
Why it matters: This case is notable...
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:
