TC09644 ****** - [2025] UKFTT 01121 (TC)

Fecha: 25-Jul-2025

Conclusion

Conclusion

99.

We accept PO owned the relevant land. The conacre agreement was a licence that did not alter ownership or PO’s rights of access/possession of the land. As such there is a rebuttable presumption that he knowingly caused or knowingly permitted the disposal to be made: ss 41(5) and 41(7)(a) FA 1996.

100.

However, we find that he has rebutted this presumption by showing that he did not have the mental capacity to do this in 2013/14. This is shown by CD’s evidence of his childlike behaviour and his inability to understand documents at the time. We do not find her to be dishonest in her testimony: while we acknowledge that it is not in any way appropriate to sign documents in her father’s name as she did.

101.

HMRC’s case is that PO’s capacity is shown from:

(1)

the applications for the single farm payment – however there were signed by CD and do not therefore evidence PO’s capacity;

(2)

PO being a joint registered keeper of the cattle found on the farm – however CD was also a joint keeper of the cattle and we accept CD’s testimony that her father was not involved in the business since the death of her mother;

(3)

the purchase of the JCB telehandler – however this was effected by CD;

(4)

Officer Blair observed vehicles in the farmyard registered to PO – however it does not follow he was using them. It is consistent with them being vehicles used in the farm business, so registered to PO, but with the business being undertaken without his knowledge or involvement due to his illness.

102.

We accept therefore that CD was responsible for the above. We accept her testimony for the reasons set out above.

103.

Similarly while it is plausible that the JCB telehandler may have been involved in the disposal, due to the traces of waste on it, we find that PO will have had no knowledge or involvement due to his illness.

104.

We note that PO signed the conacre agreement when he was at his family solicitors, but with another daughter. We infer that he must have been assisted by that daughter in a similar way to which CD assisted him in relation to the farm business.

105.

We therefore find on balance of probabilities that PO will have lacked capacity to knowingly cause or knowingly permit the disposal to be made (or to make the disposal) in 2013/14. We therefore allow the appeal.