Interestingly, if the advisor had been more competent & expert at SDLT the taxpayers would probably not have succeeded, which is ironic*. HMRC will be most upset (I'm not sure why there was no 20 year DA period for failing to file the amended SDLT return.) Well done to the taxpayers' counsel.
https://files.pumptax.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/03155627/Decision-T...
* also HMRC should have submitted some evidence per para 151, so this was really an HMRC c*ck-up and perhaps they should have instructed counsel (who might also have argued the 20 year DA point) rather than using an in-house HMRC litigator, especially when presumably there was a lot of SDLT at stake.
Replies (4)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
I quite like at 122 how the taxpayers denied being involved in an avoidance scheme and indeed, didn't even know what they were signing or getting into and quite rightly found as not credible by the Court.