TC09512 - [2025] UKFTT 00522 (TC)

Fecha: 11-Abr-2025

Derived from Mr Price’s evidence

Derived from Mr Price’s evidence

54.

Mr Price’s review of the evidence resulted in him concluding, in all regards other than on the question of overseas rental income, that Mr Hartop and the reviewing officer had acted reasonably and that the calculations of the Assessments and associated Penalties was correct.

55.

However, Mr Price concluded that the sums assessed for overseas rental income were understated by the Assessments following the review conclusion letter. He noted that the Appellants had consistently stated that the property was held jointly by them in equal shares but had provided no explanation for the disclosure which attributed a lower amount received by NN as compared to SA. Further, there was no evidence to support the 10% allowance given on review. We were invited to vary the Assessments to increase the tax assessed on overseas rental income.

56.

In response to cross examination Mr Price confirmed that:

(1)

Whilst there was evidence that shares had been sold in SACL it was considered highly unlikely that the £10,000 deducted from cash banked in 2013 represented proceeds from the share sale. In the first instance by that date the company was not declaring dividends. Further, there was evidence that someone with the same or a similar name to the new shareholder had made smaller payments in earlier years. Mr Price considered the information to be conflicting as to when the shares were in fact sold but did not believe £10,000 represented a credible valuation for the shares.

(2)

In his view, save where reconciliation was possible on the documents (as was the case for cash salary paid to SA in 2013 and 2014), it was reasonable to conclude that the sums declared as salary/dividend by SACL were more likely to have been paid by bank transfer in a period in which there were no bank statements than paid in cash and deposited into the account in periods for which there were statements.

(3)

He considered that the penalty percentages allowed were appropriate, but he considered them to be on the generous side given the level of co-operation received.