Another strange CGT one

I seem to accumulate them

Didn't find your answer?

New prospect exchanged contracts on a property owned by him and used in his sole trader business. Before completion he received a  much larger offer. The original buyer agreed to release him from the contract on payment of 90% of the sum due. He has now contracted with the 2nd buyer and received a payment equal to 3 times what he paid the 1st buyer 

My thoughts are:-

Entrepreneurs relief on the 1st deal (still thinking abouit that ) and full CGT on the 2nd. Anybody got a disagreement with my analysis

I'm happy there's no mony laundering involved even though it seems weird 

Replies (31)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Jdopus
02nd Sep 2020 15:26

What did the first buyer actually get for his money? The second buyer seems like a fairly straightforward capital gain matter, the first is the complicated bit.

Thanks (0)
Ivor Windybottom
By Ivor Windybottom
02nd Sep 2020 15:29

If the first deal did not complete then there is no disposal of the property at that stage, despite having exchanged contracts.

Not sure how you treat the payment to the first buyer, i.e. is it enhancement expenditure?

Sale to second buyer is the one to worry about CGT upon, if I understand what you're saying.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ivor Windybottom:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
02nd Sep 2020 16:44

Ivor Windybottom wrote:

Not sure how you treat the payment to the first buyer.

I think this is the point of interest (though, like Wanderer, I'm a little befuddled by the OP). From memory, the aborted sale may be governed by one of the 144 sections (possibly even s144 itself) - but possibly only from the (aborted) purchase point of view.

The payment may be a tax nothing, from the prospect's viewpoint. But you'd want to work through it all to make sure; that means a fee for possibly no return for the client.

Tax work can be an awkward cuss sometimes.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
02nd Sep 2020 16:50

My immediate thought was - no disposal (re the 1st deal) so no 1st deal to worry about. The 90% payment I would imagine to be treated as compensation for breach of contract. Taxable for the abortive purchaser? I don't know. Allowable for the vendor? "Expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred in establishing, preserving or defending his title ..."?

Thanks (2)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
02nd Sep 2020 17:12

Sames.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By SXGuy
02nd Sep 2020 20:24

"Payments awarded for breaches of contract are subject to scrutiny using the “Gourley principle.” According to Hui Ling McCarthy of Gray's Inn Tax Chambers, this means: “That a person must not be placed in a better or worse position as a result of a breach of contract than if the contract had actually been performed.” Therefore, the payment awarded is the amount the person would have received net of tax and is not subject to further tax."

Was the 90% net of the tax due probably not, but that's the first buyers issue not the seller I guess.

However was the seller worse off as a result? No. If he then receives 3x the original offer, id say he wasn't worse off.

Thanks (0)
Replying to SXGuy:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
02nd Sep 2020 20:29

You are talking about an award of damages made by court or other authority. It appears that here we are talking about a sum agreed by the two parties, so the Gourley principle is not in point.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
03rd Sep 2020 07:48

Even if it were, it applies to the recipient and the receipt, for whom (as the principle says) the money is supposed to be fair recompense.

Bernard's concern is the payer and the payment.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By SXGuy
03rd Sep 2020 08:39

I realise that, i was just looking at the other side of the equation, but i take the point that it doesnt apply to this case either way.

Thanks (0)
Replying to SXGuy:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
03rd Sep 2020 10:35

SXGuy wrote:

i was just looking at the other side of the equation.

Curiously, I don't think it's an equation. At least in the sense that the mirror tax treatment you might expect may well not apply - my gut feel is a tax charge for the recipient and no tax relief for the payer.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By SXGuy
03rd Sep 2020 08:38

Fair enough, it was pulled from the net without much thought as to whether it applied in this case.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By MuayThai
02nd Sep 2020 15:52

Why ER on first deal? is he selling sole trade business along with property?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Wanderer
02nd Sep 2020 15:55

bernard michael wrote:

Entrepreneurs relief on the 1st deal (still thinking abouit that ) and full CGT on the 2nd. Anybody got a disagreement with my analysis

I don't understand your analysis.
I'm reading your description of the 1st deal as that your client paid out 90% of the original deal price. So what is there to claim entrepreneurs relief on?
Thanks (1)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By Anonymous.
02nd Sep 2020 16:13

Wanderer wrote:

I don't understand your analysis.
I'm reading your description of the 1st deal as that your client paid out 90% of the original deal price. So what is there to claim entrepreneurs relief on?

Phew! Not just me then? Thought I was going mad.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By Anonymous.
02nd Sep 2020 16:13

Duplicate

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Wanderer
02nd Sep 2020 16:59

Lack of detail here. Reading into the OP's analysis could it be:-
Deal 1, sale, unconditional contract etc.
Deal 1a, purchase (at 90%).
Deal 2 sale.
Probably a good, detailed, read of the paperwork required to establish exactly how deal 1a was constructed.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
02nd Sep 2020 17:14

Always good to read the paperwork.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bernard michael
03rd Sep 2020 09:22

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm getting the documentation sent to me. However there are more strings to this than the prospect originally told me.
The property is in joint names with his divorced wife
Both buyers know each other and work together on developments
The 2nd buyer has granted a 7 year lease to the prospect at a peppercorn rent whereas the 1st buyer wanted vacant possession

Something doesn't feel right but hopefully the papers will reveal all. Perhaps it's tied up with the tax affairs of the 2 buyers. Also I've been told by a local valuer that the property worth is close to the value in the original contract- so why such an outrageous 2nd price

Weird or what ??

Thanks (0)
Replying to bernard michael:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
03rd Sep 2020 09:26

"However there are more strings to this than the prospect originally told me" - how unusual.

I agree that something doesn't smell right - why would one pay what appears to be an OTT price for a property occupied at a peppercorn rent compared to a much smaller sum for vacant possession? Someone must know something that no-one else involved does.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
03rd Sep 2020 11:18

Weirdest reverse premium I've ever seen, and it raises another (tax... I'm staying out of the "you what?"s) question: does the granting of a lease at 7 years' peppercorn rent constitute additional consideration?

Bernard, I hope your fee has a per-string element!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
03rd Sep 2020 12:05

I wouldn't have thought so (re additional consideration). If anything, the purchaser/ lessor might need to consider whether the deemed premium provisions apply (eg CG70825)

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
03rd Sep 2020 13:01

I would think if I sold you my £100,000 house on the terms that you would pay me £50,000 in cash upfront and let me continue to live there for £50 pa for 10 years, then (the value of) the bit after the "and" would be just as much consideration as the bit before it. (I confess this, and everything else I've said in this thread, is gut-feel not head-knowledge, and it may simply be wrong.)

What's weird about Bernard's case is that the upfront part the buyer has apparently offered is equivalent to £300,000. But the "and" is still there.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
03rd Sep 2020 13:28

Possibly - we're back to discussions about transactions/arrangements and conditionality, sale & leaseback provisions etc. Can't be bothered to go through it all.

Thanks (0)
By Paul D Utherone
03rd Sep 2020 10:46

Sounds like you're coming to the denouement of Cabin Pressure, MJN Airways & the wiring in Gertie... but that's by the by.

The 90% seems to be compensation for backing out of contract 1, but I wonder whether that will actually be allowable enhancement cost against contract 2. Somewhere at the back of my mind there's a case (fairly recent) that says that it will not be enhancement expenditure, but I cannot immediately dredge it up.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul D Utherone:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
03rd Sep 2020 12:14

I don't think it can be argued to be enhancement expenditure, but I'm wondering, as above, whether it would fall under the establishment etc of title. Perhaps the case you're thinking of (I think I know the one you're talking about but cannot remember the name) addressed that point as well.

EDIT - found it: Blackwell [2017] BTC 9

Although there are some similarities there are, I think, significant differences. But we don't know all of the facts of this case so I'll end there.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By CTA
03rd Sep 2020 12:11

Julian Blackwell v HMRC?

Thanks (0)
Replying to CTA:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
03rd Sep 2020 12:14

As I was typing :¬)

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By CTA
03rd Sep 2020 12:29

Great minds, Wilson :)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bernard michael
04th Sep 2020 09:33

Thanks for your useful thoughts. I'll report back when/if I see the documentation

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Mr J Andrews
07th Sep 2020 14:10

There's probably even more strings which the ''prospect'' will come up with if the responses to what has so far been provided are unfavourable.
Did you not think to ask for the full details at the outset ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Mr J Andrews:
avatar
By bernard michael
07th Sep 2020 14:11

Mr J Andrews wrote:

There's probably even more strings which the ''prospect'' will come up with if the responses to what has so far been provided are unfavourable.
Did you not think to ask for the full details at the outset ?

Yes my post is based on what he disclosed to date

Thanks (0)