Related links
www.siftmedia.co.uk - Interactive community publishing
Registered in England & Wales No. 05923499
Terms & conditions |
Privacy
www.siftmedia.co.uk - Interactive community publishing
Registered in England & Wales No. 05923499
Terms & conditions |
Privacy
Common Practice not to Claim
I think HMRC are being disingenuous here. My belief is that there had been very little consideration given to how taper relief might apply to a lump sum received from the disposal of minerals (and taxed as a capital gain under the "treasury Arrangement")- and the half of a mineral royalty that is taxed as a gain, until it was raised by me in correspondence with G Davenport a CGT specialist at Capital and Valuation Division Saphire House in September 2001. Tt was in that correspondence that Davenport told me that the IR view was that taper relief could not apply to the half of the mineral royalty taxed as a gain for the reasons I explained in the Accounting Web thread in 2003 and which are now stated at TSBM3196.
As far as I recall there was nothing on this point in the HMRC guidance in 2001 and the assumption among most CGT specialists I spoke to in 2001 was that taper relief should be due and they were surprised the IR took an opposing view. Certainly that is the view that Julie Bultler took in either a book or an article that she had written at about that time because I remember writing to her to advise her of the contrary view taken by Davenport.
I told other tax advisors specialising in farms and landed estates, including Adrian Baird at the CLA , of Davenport's view and thereafter the IR view was given wider publicity and prominence in articles, books and talks given by those specialists and others. I imagine that if someone was aware of the IR view then like me they may thereafter have said to clients:
!. This is the IR view of the matter confirmed in writing by a CGT specialist,
2. Personaly I believe the IR view to be flawed, but if you want to make a return challenging the IR view you can expect the IR to open an enquiry into your return,
3. The enquiry into your SA Return may not be limited to that one matter.
4. You may have to take the IR to the High Court to challenge their view.
5. Do the amounts of tax involved merit this course of action.
The answer of course was always no. Whether a decision taken on that basis could be said to be " in accordance with comon practice" is I would have thought arguable.