![TC09540 - [2025] UKFTT 00600 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
Introduction
Introduction
Conchri Investments Limited (the “Company”) appealed against penalties totalling £15,700 issued by HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) under Schedule 55 to the Finance Act 2009, for the late filing of Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (“ATED”) returns on the dates, and in the amounts, set out in the table at paragraph 35 below.
On 17 April 2025 the Tribunal released its decision dismissing the Company’s appeal. However, the Company, in an email of 22 April 2025, notified the Tribunal that a relevant letter had unfortunately been omitted from the Document Bundle. A copy of that letter was also forwarded to the Tribunal, attached to an email from HMRC later on 22 April 2025.
Therefore, on 28 April 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the parties:
“The recent emails from the parties following the release of the decision in this matter have been referred to Judge Brooks.
It appears that he did not see the letter to which the Appellant refers in its email of 20 April in which it was inter alia stated:
“Finally, as the property value stands at £1,000.000.00 as at 05/04/2024. The returns from 2013/14 to 2015/16 do not meet the requirements to be outstanding as the value of the property was lower than £1 million and therefore lower than the threshold requirements for those tax years. These tax years should therefore have no penalties against them.”
He has therefore decided that the decision should be set aside (in accordance with Rule 38 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009.
He has also directed that:
Not later than 21 days after the date of this letter the Respondents shall provide their written representations to the Tribunal and Appellant in relation to the value of the property being £1 million as at 5 April 2024 and the effect of this valuation on the Appellant’s liability to penalties for 2013-14 to 2015-16.
The Appellant may not later than 14 days after receipt provide the Tribunal and the Appellant with their written reply in response to the written representations of the Respondents.
No reminders will be issued and, in the absence of representations under the above directions, it will be assumed that the party concerned has not availed itself of the opportunity to make representations.
All correspondence with the Tribunal by one party must be copied to the other party.
Shortly after the expiry of the time in which representations are due the Judge will consider re-issue[ing] the Decision having taken account of the representations received.
On 29 April 2025 the Company provided a current valuation of the property concerned that had been undertaken by Foxtons which was £1,050,000. The email to which that valuation was attached stated:
“As the threshold for ATED in 2015 to 2016 was £1 million, it would be extremely unlikely for the property to have only increased in value by £50,000 from 2016 to date and therefore would object to the property being assumed at being above the threshold for this year. In regards to the 2013 to 2015 periods, the ATED threshold was £2 million and as noted it would be extremely unlikely the property had decreased in value by £950,000 to date to have achieved a £2 million property valuation in 2013 to 2015.”
HMRC’s responded to the Tribunal’s letter with their written submissions on 8 May 2025 contending that the Company’s assertion that the value of the property was below £1,000,000 as at 5 April 2024 (as per the omitted letter) is irrelevant to the ATED obligation as ATED valuations are determined on specific valuation dates. HMRC also contend that the Company has provided no evidence to support its assertion of the value of the property or any financial information to establish whether the threshold has been met.