TC09585 - [2025] UKFTT 00867 (TC)

Fecha: 15-Jul-2025

The witness evidence

The witness evidence

128.

The Appellant testified that he had instructed HH, who were a local firm of accountants, as soon as possible after he became aware of the Respondents’ enquiry. He thought that this would have been as soon as he received Officer Weir’s letter of 29 August 2017 on the morning of 1 September 2017.

129.

Officer Weir testified that:

(1)

he had not re–visited the determination of the discount for disclosure after:

(a)

it had been held by the FTT (and upheld by the UT) that the Appellant had not acquired the Properties in the course of a trade; or

(b)

the Respondents had decided that the failure to file was not deliberate;

(2)

he had awarded the Appellant only a 20% discount for “Telling” because the Appellant in his initial response of 1 September 2017 had not disclosed that he had previously owned the three Properties other than 8 Wigshaw Lane and did not do so until after he had been alerted by the terms of Officer Weir’s email of later that day that the Respondents were aware of them. Officer Weir confirmed that the Respondents had known of the Appellant’s ownership of the other Properties when he sent his letter of 29 August 2017 and he had followed the Respondents’ practice of allowing the taxpayer to initiate disclosure; and

(3)

he had awarded the Appellant only a 25% discount for each of “Helping” and “Giving” because the Appellant had provided the Respondents with hardly any of the information requested. He said that the Appellant could have made more effort to provide the information – for example, by obtaining copies of the missing invoices and receipts – although he accepted that he had not specifically asked the Appellant to do that.