Amazing Lobler rectification taxpayer win case

https://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j13017/TC%2009118.pdf

Didn't find your answer?

Well done to the taxpayer's advisors on digging themselves (and the taxpayer) out of this hole.

https://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j13017/TC...

Replies (5)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Truthsayer
16th Apr 2024 08:22

So in some circumstances you can go by what you should have done rather than what you actually did? Interesting.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Truthsayer:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
16th Apr 2024 08:54

Yes; it's basically a get out of jail free card.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Truthsayer:
avatar
By FactChecker
16th Apr 2024 13:49

It's nothing like as broad as "what you should have done".

Rectification was only deemed allowable (as I understand it) principally because ALL involved parties were in full agreement as to what was intended - and were only thwarted by an unspotted rounding error in a spreadsheet.
And, importantly, there was credible evidence of that intention at all stages and of no-one having spotted the 'error' until the claim for ER was made.
There were also further criteria that needed to be met - all of which were.

So well done indeed to the advisers (and frankly justice was seen to be done), but I can't see it providing Justin's 'get out of jail free card' except in remarkably similar circumstances.

Thanks (2)
Replying to FactChecker:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
16th Apr 2024 15:14

Let's agree to disagree there (you are overlooking an awful lot here).

Thanks (0)
avatar
By kim.shaw-and-co.com
15th May 2024 23:05

Let's hope Mr Johnson learned a lesson from the (no doubt costly) debacle that a quick cross-check of whether the number "5" still appears when you manually divide integer A by integer B and then increase the number of decimal places by clicking the left arrow in the 'number' section of 'format cells' a few times is all it would have taken to head the off any error before it happened.

Alternatively, do what people used to do and check the %s on an old fashioned calculator (even one on your mobile phone) which would very likely have exposed the "4" associated with the numbers in the share sale documentation.

No doubt the first thing HMRC did when checking the claim was checking the % holding was at least 5% of the total - a few seconds' work with figures in front of them for the numbers of shares in issue at the time of the initial acquisition !!!

One might even hope that the Appellant may have learned the importance of checking critical numbers himself with so much at stake, rather than relying on other people without a personal vested interest in the outcome to do it for him ...

Thanks (0)