Form CG34 - is it a game?

Form CG34 - is it a game?

Didn't find your answer?

Having submitted several forms CG34 over the course of the last year or so (post transaction valuation checks) it is my experience that the response invariably suggests a small amendment to the valuation. The small amendment is always in the Inland Revenue's favour. The tax at stake on the amendment would be typically about enough to pay the salary of the district valuer accruing for the time spent examining the case.

Although I am not a valuer myself I would be surprised if it is so precise a science that, when presented with a proposed valuation of £30K anyone can say that £29K is a more accurate valuation with sufficient confidence as to insist on the latter.

I would have expected that a variation in valuation should be ignored unless the difference exceeds a limit (perhaps absolute, perhaps as a percentage of the valuation proposed, perhaps a combination of both). Within that limit the taxpayer's suggested valuation should be accepted.

I speculate that the district valuer recognises that it would not be cost effective for the taxpayer to dispute the small difference and that it is "easy money" to respond with a minor variation in the Revenue's favour as a matter of routine.

Am I the only one to observe this effect?

Clint Westwood

Replies (0)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

There are currently no replies, be the first to post a reply.