fbpx

CGT Loss Occurs When Payment Made, Not Before

18th July 2019 By Arman Khosravi

When a personal guarantee has to be given in order to give a lender the security it needs, the guarantor hopes that the guarantee will never be called in. However, when it is, the loss suffered by the guarantor will normally qualify as a loss for Capital Gains Tax (CGT) purposes to be set against gains chargeable to CGT.

A recent case dealt with the question of when a loss under a guarantee arises for the purposes of obtaining relief against CGT. Is it when the guarantee becomes payable or when it is actually paid? It involved a man who had been assessed to CGT over two successive years (2009/10 and 2010/11) with a liability of a little over £8,000.

He had given a guarantee by way of a deposit of money into a bank for the borrowings of a company that failed during the property crash. Some years later, when he tried to access the money in 2012, this was refused and in the tax year 2012/13 the legal title to the money was passed across to the bank under the guarantee.

He claimed the sum paid under the guarantee as a loss for CGT purposes to be set against the tax payable in the two earlier tax years. CGT losses are not available to be set back against gains assessable in earlier years, but he argued that once he had placed the funds with the bank, he no longer had control over them. The bank could have enforced its guarantee in the earlier years, but did not. He argued that the fact that the bank waited until the 2012/13 tax year to enforce its guarantee formally did not mean that he had not lost the money until then, as it was inevitable that it would do so once the company foundered.

The case was further complicated by the fact that ill health had meant that the taxpayer had given scant attention to his financial affairs during the years concerned.

Regrettably for the taxpayer, the rules that apply for relief to be given in such cases set out several criteria, all of which must be met. One of these is that the payment under the guarantee has to have been made.

The taxpayer’s claim was refused.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Retired Businessman's Final Will Ruled Invalid

2nd May, 2024 By

Having your will drawn up professionally by a qualified solicitor is always a sensible precaution, especially in later life. In a recent case, the High Court ruled that a retired businessman lacked testamentary capacity when he made a will less than three and a half years before he died at the age of 87. The man and his first wife were married for nearly 40 years and had four children. After her death he married again. In October 2015 he made a new will, revoking in most respects a will...

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...