The explanation of the Penalties
The explanation of the Penalties
In the SOC, the Respondents explained that they were now seeking to defend the calculation of the Penalties on the basis that:
the failure to notify was not deliberate;
the failure to notify was prompted;
the penalty range was 10% to 30% in respect of the tax year 2015/16 and 20% to 30% in respect of the tax years 2012/13 and 2014/15;
the discount to be applied for the quality of disclosure was 70% of the difference between the maximum and minimum in each case, which is to say 14% in the case of the tax year 2015/16 and 7% in the case of the tax years 2012/13 and 2014/15; and
the reason for that figure of 70% was as follows:
“Telling 20/30
At the start of my enquiry you did not volunteer any information about the other properties you had bought and sold. You only referred to the last disposal and did not tell me about the other three. The reduction for disclosure is 20% (out of 30%).
Helping 25/40
You have not accepted that a tax liability arises. you still claim that you intended to live in the properties, even although the facts point to you acquiring the properties for the purpose of realising a gain. Your computations of the gains include deductions for expenditure that you could not have incurred. I asked you to explain where these figures came from or where you acquired the money to pay those expenses, but you have chosen not to respond. You claimed that you did not keep any documents, but have not attempted to obtain copies. The reduction for helping is 25% (out of 40%).
Giving 25/30
There were delays at the start of this check, but I put that down to the busy tax return period that affected your advisor, and I shall not attribute those delays to you. All in all you have given me access to all of the documents you say that you have, albeit you could have done more to verify the expenditure and obtain copies of the loan agreement. I shall allow a reduction of 25%.”
- Heading
- Introduction
- The FTT Decision
- The UT Decision
- Introduction to the issues
- issue one – the principal private residence exemption
- The legislation
- dwelling–house as his only or main residence
- where the accommodation is provided for the better performance of the duties of the employment, and it is one of the
- No part of a gain to which section 222 applies shall be a chargeable gain if the dwelling–house or part of a dwelling–house has been the individual's
- “The application of section 222(8) is to be determined by the FTT in relation to all four
- The reconsideration shall be on the basis of the findings of primary fact made in the
- Findings of fact in the FTT Decision
- The documentary evidence
- The medical evidence
- The contract of employment
- The Appellant’s email
- The photographs
- The Appellant’s evidence
- Mrs Campbell’s evidence
- Officer Weir’s evidence
- Our impression of the witnesses
- Our findings of fact
- we have reached the following relevant findings of fact for the purposes of this decision
- Was it necessary for the Appellant to stay in his parent’s home in order to provide care to his father
- The Appellant’s intention to occupy
- Concluding comments in relation to our findings of fact
- Discussion
- By reason of employment
- “There are many decisions on the meaning of “by reason of employment” including in particular Wicks v Firth 56 TC 318. In John Charman v HMRC [2021] EWCA Civ 1804 (“ Charman ”) the Court of Appeal sai
- There was little, if any, dispute between the parties as to the correct test to be applied to determine whether an interest is acquired “by reason of” employment. It is not necessary for HMRC to show
- In Charman , The Court of Appeal emphasised that the FTT’s evaluation of this issue can only be challenged on appeal on limited grounds, at [46]
- There are numerous other authorities to the same effect On 25 October 2023, the Supreme Court released its decision in HMRC v Vermilion
- “If one approaches the question by asking, as suggested by Oliver LJ in Wicks v Firth , what it was that enabled Mr Campbell to enjoy the ability to reside in the family home, we do consider that the
- Necessary for the performance of the duties of the employment
- The Intention Condition
- Conclusion
- issue two – the penalties
- The legislation
- The terms of the remittance
- “ We instruct the FTT to determine, by way of oral hearing (either in person or remote)
- The reconsideration shall be on the basis of the findings of primary fact made in the
- Findings of fact in the FTT Decision
- The evidence
- The correspondence
- The explanation of the Penalties
- The witness evidence
- Our findings of fact
- Discussion
- Reasonable excuse
- – see the UT decision in Perrin v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2018] UKUT 156 (TCC) (“ Perrin ”) at paragraphs [81] to [83]
- Special circumstances
- Conclusions
![TC09585 - [2025] UKFTT 00867 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)