Commercial Property Investor Succeeds in CGT Appeal

30th September 2022 By

Losses incurred on the disposal of an asset can be set against future profits on other investments for Capital Gains Tax (CGT) purposes. As a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) ruling showed, however, behind that simple statement lie layers of complexity.

The case concerned a commercial property investor who purchased a property in 1989 for more than £1.3 million. A combination of high interest rates and a property recession, however, proved ruinous and he was constrained to sell the property in 1998 for £990,000. For CGT purposes, he sought to set that loss against the handsome profit he made on the sale of another property in 2015.

That deduction was, however, disallowed by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) on the basis that capital losses can only be carried forward to set against future gains if they are notified to HMRC within five years of the 31 January in the year following the year of assessment in which the loss arose. HMRC also issued the investor with a penalty, asserting that his deduction claim was carelessly inaccurate.

Upholding his challenge to those decisions, the FTT noted that he was not a meticulous record-keeper. He had only a partial understanding of complex tax matters and was someone who needed a lot of assistance with them. Although the document trail had long since gone cold, the FTT was satisfied that his then accountant had notified HMRC of his loss within the requisite time limit.

He was therefore entitled to deduct a loss of £412,126 from his CGT liability arising on the sale of the other property. The inaccuracy penalty was also overturned. A further penalty in respect of admittedly careless overstatement of expenses arising from the sale of the other property was confirmed in the amount of £6,627.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Relationship Status Put Under Spotlight in Divorce Case

26th February, 2024 By

Divorce proceedings are rarely cut and dry, especially where the passage of time adds complexity to matters. This was certainly so in a recent case that required a Family Court judge to rule on the validity of a decree nisi. The case centred on the divorce proceedings of a couple in their fifties and focused on a decree nisi that had been pronounced in 2012, following an application by the husband. Now seeking to finalise the divorce with a decree absolute, the husband asserted that the decree nisi had been properly...

Will Execution – Remote Witnessing Legislation Expires

22nd February, 2024 By

A legal amendment that was made during the COVID-19 pandemic allowing the witnessing of wills to take place via videoconferencing has officially expired. As of 31 January 2024, the Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Order 2020 is no longer active. It was introduced in response to the pandemic, as a means of facilitating the valid execution of wills via remote witnessing. The Order applied to wills made between 31 January 2020 and 31 January 2022, but was later extended to 31 January 2024. Section 9 of the Wills Act...

Psychotherapy Condition Leads to Contact Order Appeal

20th February, 2024 By

Wherever possible, the courts will do what they can to support contact between parents and children but, in some instances, that contact comes with conditions attached. The nature of such conditions was the cause of contention in recent appeal proceedings brought by the father of two young boys. The man appealed against a High Court order that allowed for contact periods with his children, which would progress from supervised to unsupervised and increase in length but were dependent upon him engaging in psychotherapy. This condition had been imposed following a...

Beware of Builders Offering Cut-Price Work – Court of Appeal Cautionary Tale

16th February, 2024 By

Every householder should understand the dire risks involved in opening their doors to those promising to carry out cut-price building work. A Court of Appeal decision provided distressing examples of almost the worst that can happen. A householder approaching retirement age was taken in by a workman who knocked on his door, offering to paint the front of his home for £1,000. He was introduced to another man – the offender – whom the workman described as his business partner. The pair proceeded, over a period of months, to carry...