Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

[2024] UKUT 00436 (TCC)

Fecha: 19-Feb-2024

The CGT appeal

The CGT appeal

45.

The FTT was entitled to find that the Applicant made a profit on the property at Heathcroft Crescent for the reasons it gave at [36(3)]-, 51, 64 68, 76 and concluding at [87]:

As to the capital gains he realised on Heathcroft Crescent, it is unnecessary to make a finding of fact whether on the balance of probabilities, the appellant had to incur renovation expenses twice. The appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to support the claim that there was theft and flood to the property, such as police report or insurance claims. Suffice it to note that even by the appellant’s estimates of expenses from memory, there was a chargeable gain realised. The appellant’s intention to make ‘a quick flip’ on the property suggests that the profit motive was a main reason for purchasing Heathcroft Crescent. With the intentionality to profit from the transaction in the fore, the appellant’s failure to take the necessary steps to discharge his obligations as a taxpayer in reporting the chargeable gain on the disposal of the property took on that selfsame intentionality as to render it deliberate.

46.

The FTT was entitled to rely on the reasons it gave (including lack of any documentary record of expenses relied upon) for its finding on liability to CGT. The Applicant relies on the FTT giving no or insufficient weight to the witness evidence of Gavin Brady and refers to page numbers of the hearing bundle. However, he did not provide me with the hearing bundle from the FTT nor provide or quote any extract from any statement from Mr Brady so it is impossible for me to know what relevant evidence he relies upon as being before the FTT but not being taken into account. This ground does not meet the Georgiou requirements. Furthermore, the FTT refers to a statement at [36](3) of the Decision that it has taken account of: ‘A statement dated 28 September 2021 by a plumber allegedly attending to the emergency call out to deal with the flood in 2006 is lodged.’ It refers again to the plumber’s statement at [74]. If this is from Mr Brady then the statement was clearly taken into account by the FTT.