You Are Entitled to Rely on Professional Tax Advice – Even If it is Wrong

9th July 2021 By

Professional tax advice, however carefully considered, cannot always be correct, but you are generally entitled to rely on it. A tribunal made that point in relieving a retired executive of a tax bill that would have had a devastating impact on his pension.

The Finance Act 2004 imposed a highly controversial charge to Income Tax known as the lifetime allowance charge (LAL). As from 6 April 2006, a threshold was imposed on lifetime pension savings. Any savings in excess of that threshold were subject to LAL when pension benefits were taken, often many years in the future.

The new regime was, however, tempered by transitional arrangements whereby enhanced protection could be applied for by those whose existing pension arrangements would result in the lifetime allowance being exceeded. Such applications were required to be made by 5 April 2009.

Following his retirement, the executive applied for and received a lifetime allowance of £1.5 million. His then financial advisors, however, failed to bring to his attention his entitlement to claim enhanced protection in 2006 or at any time thereafter. Only after he sought advice elsewhere was he informed in writing, in August 2016, that he could make a late application for enhanced protection.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) conceded that his reliance on professional tax advice afforded him a reasonable excuse for most of the delay. However, in refusing to grant him enhanced protection, it argued that he had delayed too long between the date on which he became aware of his entitlement to make the late application and the date on which he actually lodged it.

In upholding his challenge to that decision, the First-tier Tribunal found that the relevant period of delay was three months. Once he had good cause to believe that he faced serious and wholly unexpected tax difficulties, he acted promptly, diligently and with sufficient speed. Overall, he had behaved as an objectively reasonable taxpayer would have done in his situation.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Restrictions on Property Use Can Be Limited by Human Lifespans

23rd July, 2021 By

Restrictions on the use to which properties can be put often lurk in old title deeds. As one case showed, however, some of them only endure as long as a human lifetime whilst others have no such shelf life and continue to have effect indefinitely. The case concerned a covenant in a 1961 conveyance that placed restrictions on the purchasers of a building plot on which a bungalow was later erected. It forbade them from constructing any other building on the plot, and from making alterations to the bungalow's external...

COVID-19 – Do Diving Asset Values Justify Unwinding Divorce Settlements?

20th July, 2021 By

The value of many assets has been devastated by COVID-19 – but is that a good enough reason for setting aside divorce settlements agreed before the pandemic struck? A family judge considered that issue in a guideline case. The case concerned a middle-aged couple whose 24-year marriage yielded three children before it ended in divorce. By far their biggest asset was a family business which, prior to the onset of the pandemic, was valued at about £3.5 million gross. The husband owned 51 per cent of the shares in the...

'Both' or 'Each'? – One Mistranscribed Word Triggers £6.4 Million Will Dispute

15th July, 2021 By

Will drafting is an exact science, requiring years of professional training, and a single mischosen or out-of-place word can have very serious consequences. Exactly that happened in a High Court case concerning the mistaken use of the word 'both' – rather than 'each' – in a millionaire businessman's will. The businessman, whose estate was worth £6.4 million, was the main shareholder in a company in which his wife and a close friend and colleague – the beneficiaries – held minority stakes. By his will, he conferred power on his executors...

Judge Declines to Authorise COVID-19 Vaccination of Dementia Sufferer

12th July, 2021 By

Whether or not to be vaccinated against COVID-19 is a matter of personal choice. A family judge robustly made that point in declining to authorise vaccination of a care home resident suffering from acute dementia who had fiercely objected to the procedure. The 86-year-old woman believed that she was living in the late 1940s or early 1950s, that her long-deceased parents were still alive and that she worked at a cake factory where she had been employed in her youth. Every day at 4pm, when the factory siren once signalled...