In Stembile Chinyanga v HMRC (TC03643 – 28 May 2014) the FTT agreed with the taxpayer’s claim that HMRC had miscalculated her property income when amending her self-assessment returns.
The issue was the amount of taxable rent paid by PSD to Mrs Chinyanga a company of which she was a shareholder. The FTT observed that the burden of proof lay firmly with the taxpayer ‘who will have all the relevant information’.
The FTT noted that Mrs Chinyanga had purchased the property because PSD could not obtain a mortgage. Although a yearly tenancy agreement had been entered into the real agreement was that PSD would pay such an amount as would ensure that Mrs Chinyanga would break even. Consequently the amount accruing and due for each period of occupation was the amount actually received in that period. Furthermore no bad debt arose....
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 Stembile Chinyanga v HMRC (TC03643 – 28 May 2014) the FTT agreed with the taxpayer’s claim that HMRC had miscalculated her property income when amending her self-assessment returns.
The issue was the amount of taxable rent paid by PSD to Mrs Chinyanga a company of which she was a shareholder. The FTT observed that the burden of proof lay firmly with the taxpayer ‘who will have all the relevant information’.
The FTT noted that Mrs Chinyanga had purchased the property because PSD could not obtain a mortgage. Although a yearly tenancy agreement had been entered into the real agreement was that PSD would pay such an amount as would ensure that Mrs Chinyanga would break even. Consequently the amount accruing and due for each period of occupation was the amount actually received in that period. Furthermore no bad debt arose....
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:
