Stamp Duty ignorance was not a reasonable excuse
If they do not appoint a professional to act for them in property transactions, taxpayers must be sure they understand their responsibilities.
Replies (6)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
I know it's April 1st ... but really, this is a very weak story if it is meant to portray why an individual taxpayer should have used a professional.
Frankly the £247 at stake was a mere spec in the likely fees of a conveyancing solicitor appointed to sort out the original documentation.
Whilst I hate to generalise, my experiences (and those of friends & family) of such solicitors over the last couple of years has been universally appalling.
Not just overpriced, but slipshod and forever tardy ... I don't pay a professional so that I can find/correct their mistakes or to have the pleasure of continuously reminding them of missed deadlines (that they created).
Or rather, that's exactly what I do end up doing (with ill grace)!
Hi Hugo, thank you for your comment. The case and summary article highlight how simple transactions can go awry if you do not have a full understanding of the rules or the administration process.
This clearly reads as taxpayer going to tribunal as a matter of principle.
At £247 if ever there was a justification for awarding costs due to wasting public resources, this is it
I once saw a library book "How to do your own conveyancing and save £100s". I thought; that's a bit of a false economy!
Not one to usually brag but my inter family transfer sailed through like a dose of salts, the old adage of "measure twice, cut once" springs to mind.
The photo used to illustrate this article seems inappropriate. Given the facts, it is unlikely that there have been an estate agents' board outside the house.