News archive

Pawson deceased v HMRC 2012 UKFTT 51 (TC)

The First-tier tax Tribunal has ruled that a property used as a holiday cottage qualifies for inheritance tax business property relief (BPR).

This case has generated a lot of interest as HMRC has delayed a number of similar cases pending the outcome of this one.  It will be interesting to see if HMRC decide to appeal this decision.

For those interested in how the legal teams interacted prior to the hearing I refer you to paragraphs 3 to 9 of the decision.  Fascinating.

HMRC questioned:

(1)  whether the property in question qualified to be treated as “relevant business property” and (2) was it used in the operation of a business for “gain”.  Section 105 IHTA 1984.

HMRC also argued that:

Even if the use to which the property had been put amounted to the operation of a business in principle, and for gain, it was to be excluded from the term “relevant business property” by reason of section 105(3) IHTA 1984 on the basis that the business consisted wholly or mainly of “holding investments”.

The main findings of the Tribunal were:

1.  The exploitation of the property in question as a holiday cottage amounted to the operation of business.

2.  The business was conducted with a view to gain even though it was not always profitable.

3.  An intelligent businessman would not regard the ownership of a holiday letting property as an investment due to the need to constantly find new occupants and to provide servcies unconnected with and over above those needed for the bare upkeep of the property.

The full judgement is available here.

Let’s start with the Scottish Budget.

The Scottish Government’s Budget was passed by the Scottish Parliament yesterday with the support of the Liberal Democrats.  The Budget outlines the Scottish Government’s £30 billion spending plan for the next financial year.

The amendment that stood out concerned the public health levy also known as the  “Tesco tax”.  The change will mean that instead of collecting £30m, £40m and £40m over the next three years it will bring in £5m less in each of these three years.  The Scottish Government claims that only 240 retail premises, around 0.1% of all business premises in Scotland, would pay more.  It will be interesting to see the reaction to this amendment.

Now to the news that over one million taxpayers face a penalty of £100 for failing to submit their self-assessment tax returns on time.  The figure of 1.1 million is the lowest since online filing first started and compares with 1.4 million last year and 1.6 million the year before.  These taxpayers will have to pay the £100 fine unless they have a reasonable excuse.  Valid reasons include serious illness, a bereavement, or a loss of documents because of theft, fire or flood.  After three months, additional fines of £10 a day start to accrue and could eventually amount to a maximum of £1,600.  More on this can be found in an article from the BBC news website which can be found here.

Two non football tax avoidance stories this week.  HMRC announced that its next planned crackdown will target construction workers.  Traders who carry out roofing, joinery bricklaying, window fitting and carpentry will be targeted.  The clampdown  follows other campaigns with doctors, dentists and tutors in the spotlight.  Interested but not surprised to see HMRC making it clear that they will use web searches to target those dodging tax.

The second story was extremely embarrassing for the UK Government and in particular Danny Alexander the Chief Secretary to HM Treasury.  This story concerned an arrangement reported to have allowed the Student Loans Company’s chief executive, Ed Lister, to avoid thousands of pounds in income tax and national insurance.  HMRC had authorised the SLC to make gross payments to Lester’s personal services company.

How could anyone at HMRC or HM Treasury think this was a good idea or could be justified? Am I surprised? No.  It seems that there is a section in these any other government organisations who just don’t get it.  The UK Government’s handling of the Network Rail bonuses is just another example of this attitude and I suspect, sadly, won’t be the last.  Thanks due to the BBC’s Newsnight programme for bringing the SLC issue to a wider audience.

BBC Newsnight journalist Richard Watson summed this issue up very well:  “In the current climate of national austerity and financial hardship, it’s hard to imagine a more politically charged story.  One of the most senior public servants in the land, paid by the taxpayer, granted special concessions to be paid gross through his private service company based at his home address.”

Now to an example of the carrot and stick approach to taxation and behavioural change.  I blogged about this issue last week.   The Scotsman reported this week that Scots who do not insulate their homes should be forced to pay higher council tax or face increased stamp duty land tax on their property.  Not sure about the stamp duty land tax point as it is the purchaser who pays that tax.  Nonetheless Alex McLeod, chairman of the Association for the Conservation of Energy told the Scotsman:  “… sticks as well as carrots are needed to encourage people to conserve energy in their homes.”

Interestingly the idea was attacked by a diverse range of bodies.  The TaxPayers Alliance branded the idea as “outrageous” and Friends of the Earth Scotland said that the Scottish Government should pay for everyone to have free insulation.  The article from the Scotsman can be found here.

Now to Westminster.  The jostling for position prior to the UK Budget in March continues.  This week it was Nick Clegg saying that Conservative plans to give married couples a tax break must take second place behind a proposed tax cut for low earners.  The UK Deputy Prime Minister, it has also been reported, wants his party’s plans to increase the threshold for income tax to £10,000 to take precedence over any move to recognise marriage in the tax system.

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has criticised HM  Treasury for the way it monitors government spending.  It seems that almost £11bn in unpaid tax has been written off without HM Treasury knowledge.   A report on the first set of “Whole of Government Accounts” by the Committee said that HM Treasury’s ability to identify financial risks needed to improve.  An article from the BBC News website on this can be found here.

Now to a worrying trend.  An increasing number of businesses are struggling to pay their tax bills after new figures show a growing number are using credit cards to make their payments.  During 2005/06 businesses made just over 6,000 credit card payments to HMRC for PAYE, corporation and personal tax bills.  This had increased to 365,000 for 2009/10.  The credit card payments in 2005/06 totalled more than £2m.  In 2009/10 it had increased to just under £486m.  Thanks to the Ashworth Law firm which conducted a Freedom of Information request to collate the data.

Now to Englandshire and a matter I have covered before.  Eighteen local authorities in England have rejected an offer of UK Government money that would allow them to freeze council tax.  You may remember Eric Pickles,  the UK Government’s Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, recent comment that councils in England had a “moral duty” to freeze the council tax.  Clearly some councils in England beg to differ on this point.  I was going to say “let battle commence” but battle clearly has commenced.

So to Europe and an old favourite.  The Ernst & Young Item Club has calculated that the UK would be liable to pay 75 per cent of the revenues from the European Commission’s Financial Transactions Tax because of the size and scale of Britain’s financial services sector relative to the rest of Europe.  Even if the UK opts out it seems that the UK’s financial sector would still have to contribute about 60 per cent of total revenues if a “reverse charge mechanism” was applied.  Something for our politicians to think about.  They might also want to consider abolishing charging stamp duty and SDRT on shares transactions if a deal was done on FTT.  I suspect there is plenty of mileage left in this particular debate.

An interesting week for football north and south of the border.  The more interesting sport stories of the week also seemed to involve tax.  This should not come as a surprise given the amount of money that exists at the top end of this particular sport.  In simple terms it was ever thus.

Have a good weekend.

Inner House case concerning tripartite agreement between East Dunbartonshire Council, Bett Homes and Glasgow University. The agreement allowed the Council to sell the Bearsden Academy site to Bett for development and relocate the school to a site at St Andrews College in Bearsden which it was purchasing from the University of Glasgow.

The Council sought declarator that Bett was bound to fulfil its side of the bargain and pay the final instalment of the purchase price for Academy site. The dispute centred on whether the time was of the essence regarding the entry date on which vacant possession was to have been given to Bett. Bett argued that it was of the essence and, the Council having been unable to give vacant possession on the agreed date, it had been in material breach of contract and Bett had validly rescinded the contract. The Inner House upheld Lord Glennie’s decision finding that time was not of the essence and the contract remained live for performance.

The full judgement is available from Scottish Courts here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.

Outer House case considering the interpretation of missives for a property in Melrose, near Galashiels. Pinecraven sought damages and interest from Mr and Mrs Taddei as a result of their failure to settle the transaction. Mr and Mrs Taddei argued that there was no concluded contract.

The crux of the Taddeis’ argument was that Pinecraven’s offer to sell contained a time limit for acceptance after which the offer would be null and void. Whilst the Taddeis’ qualified acceptance arrived within the time limit, as it contained a qualification, it was not an acceptance of the offer. Consequently, Pinecraven’s subsequent letter concluding the bargain had no effect.

Lord Kinclaven rejected the Taddeis’ arguments finding that, although the acceptance was qualified, it was still an acceptance within the meaning of the clause containing the time limit. Even if that were not the case, the Taddeis’ qualified acceptance was a counter offer which was capable of acceptance within a reasonable time, and indeed, was so accepted by Pinecraven’s letter concluding the bargain. As a result it was found that there was a concluded contract between the parties.

The full text of the decision is available from the Scottish Courts website here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.

Let’s start with my favourite Chicago politician and the small matter of the next US Presidential election.

I was interested to read this week that President Obama is considering a form of “minimum taxation”.   The plan seems to be if you make more than $1 million a year you should not pay less than 30 per cent in taxes.  In addition if you earn more than $1 million a year you will not be allowed to claim any tax relief or deductions.  On corporate taxation no American company will be allowed to avoid paying its “fair” share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas.  Again multinational companies will be liable for a basic minimum tax.  I wonder if we will see our politicians thinking along similar lines in the near future.  I suspect that we will.

Now to the independence and fiscal powers debate.  Two major developments this week. Firstly sources close to the Prime Minister are reported to have said: “that a substantial increase in financial powers for Holyrood is not an option if Scotland wants to remain within the United Kingdom.”  If the UK Conservative party sticks with this line in the sand then how will those who support “devo max” or “devo plus” vote in 2014?  Will the Liberal Democrats and the main UK opposition party continue to support this policy?

Only time will tell as far as these questions are concerned.  One thing is though certain and that is the UK Government will face opposition on this point.  This week groups from the voluntary sector, churches, trade unions and the business community have formed a coalition to explore the possibility of a “middle-ground” option which is short of independence.  This group is termed “civic Scotland” and has the support of two think tanks Reform Scotland and the Centre for Public Policy.  For completeness sake I should mention that I am a former trustee of Reform Scotland and that I was one of the authors of Reform Scotland’s fiscal power papers.  I am though not involved with this group.

I was surprised that more was not made of the new statistics produced by HMRC this week.  UK tax receipts up to January 2012 show that total tax revenues in the 2010-11 fiscal year very nearly recovered to their pre-recession 2007-08 level and are set to be substantially higher in the current 2011-12 tax year.

Now to something we in Scotland are going to have to consider as tax powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament.  It is easy to suggest a new tax.  Recent examples include a “bed tax” for Edinburgh.  Another possible new tax is the so called “bag tax”.  It was reported this week that Northern Ireland is to introduce such a tax from April.  Wales introduced a similar tax last year and the Republic of Ireland has had such a tax since 2002.  The Scottish Government is presently consulting on this issue.

As I said it is easy to suggest a new tax.  It is harder to explain what that tax is meant to achieve.  That should always be the starting point.  Are we looking to increase tax revenue or change behaviour or possibly a bit of both?  When environmental taxes such as aggregates levy and landfill tax were introduced the politicians struggled to answer this question.

I would also expect an explanation as to how the tax will be collected, the cost of collection and who carries that cost.  Any claim as to potential revenue also needs to be looked at closely and also put into context.  Most taxation revenue comes from just a handful of taxes.  Many of the UK’s minor taxes produce a relatively small amount of revenue.

Any new tax should also have a review date.  This ensures that any claims as to revenue or the cost of administration can be checked within a relatively short period of time.

Now to an update in the Scotsman on Edinburgh airport’s so called “kiss and fly” tax.  A total of 15p of every £1 generated by the charge for dropping off passengers beside the airport terminal is being channelled into its environmental fund.  The article can be found here.

Now to business rates and an excellent piece in the Scotsman newspaper.  The Scotsman reports that an unprecedented number of firms in Edinburgh have demanded reduced business rates as they struggle with a weak global economy and local difficulties such as tram works.  The article can be found here.

Now to Europe.  I was not surprised that President Sarkozy has decided to introduce a French financial transaction tax in August.  Will he still be in power then is of course another question.  The plan is to unilaterally impose a 0.1% tax on financial transactions.  The UK Prime Minister’s reaction was as expected.  Of greater interest is whether other European countries follow Sarkozy’s lead.

I have been following the Harry Redknapp trial with interest.  It is alleged that he received undeclared payments via a Monaco bank account from his former boss at Portsmouth Football Club.  Reports such as this one from the BBC News website, found here, make fascinating reading.

It seems that the Chief Executive of the Student Loan Company has his salary of £182,000 salary paid via a company and without tax being deducted.  The article claims that both HMRC and HM Treasury were aware of this arrangement which allows Ed Lester to pay corporation tax of 21% rather than up to 50% income tax on his earnings.  You have to wonder if the people who approved this arrangement have any sense of what is happening in the real world just now.  This is an excellent piece of journalism from the Guardian and the article can be found here.

Finally to more serious matters.  Good luck to new Scottish captain Ross Ford this weekend.  No pressure!

Have a good weekend.

Inner House case considering a planning appeal in respect of a proposed development of 12 flats by Greenland Developments on land to the south of Veitch’s  Square, Stockbridge in Edinburgh. Despite being recommended for approval by the planning officer, the application was refused as the development was deemed to be contrary to the Local Plan in various respects.  Greenland appealed to the Scottish Ministers.  Following an unaccompanied site inspection and consideration of the documentation, a Reporter refused the appeal by means of a brief decision letter. Greenland then appealed that decision. They argued:

• the Reporter had failed to provide adequate and intelligible reasons for refusing the appeal;
• the Reporter’s decision letter had failed to pay due regard to the terms of section 25 of the 1997 Act which provide that where, in making a determination under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise;
• the handling of the appeal by the Reporter had been tainted by procedural irregularities in that the Reporter had refused a reasonable request on behalf of the appellant that she should hold an accompanied site inspection and had also refused a request that she hear part of the appeal by way of oral process;
• Regulation 4(2) of the The Town & Country Planning (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 provides that within 21 days of receipt of notification of a Notice of Appeal, the planning authority must send to the Scottish Ministers its response to the appeal, together with associated documentation. In this case the Council had failed to do so; and
• finally, it was argued that the Reporter had erred in failing to consider whether the imposition of a relevant condition might have rendered acceptable what she otherwise considered to be an unacceptable development.

An Extra Division of the Inner House refused the appeal finding that it had been open to the Reporter to reach the findings she had. It was perfectly clear from the decision letter which findings and conclusions the Reporter had reached and why she had reached them.  She also had the discretion to refuse to have an accompanied visit and to refuse to hold an oral hearing.

With regard to s25 of the 1997 Act, although the Reporter did not specifically refer to the statutory provisions, she applied the correct legal test. She considered whether the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the New Town conservation area. In the light of those findings she assessed whether the proposed development complied with specified polices in the development plan, whether the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan and whether any other material considerations warranted granting planning permission in the face of conflict with the development plan.

With regard to the Reporter’s consideration of the response by the Council to the Greenland’s Notice of Appeal, regulation 4(2) provides that, in addition to the planning authority’s response, the planning authority also require to send to the Scottish Ministers a copy of the documents which were before the planning authority in reaching their decision, a copy of any report on handling and any conditions the planning authority consider should be imposed in the event that the Reporter decides that planning permission should be granted. Given the scope of the documentation, the Extra Division did not consider that the public interest would be served if the Reporter could not take the documents into account if they were not submitted in the 21 day period.

Finally, as regards the failure to consider whether the attachment of conditions may have rendered the development acceptable, although reference to a possible condition had been made on behalf of Greenland, it had not been argued that the imposition of the condition on its own would have enabled the Reporter to reach a different conclusion. Furthermore, the information before the Reporter was not such as could have satisfied the Reporter that the householder concerned would agree to the condition or that there was any reasonable prospect that such a condition could be complied with. The possibility of any other conditions being imposed was not raised with the Reporter at any stage.

The full text of the decision is available from the Scottish Courts website here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.

More information on the closure of the Office of the Public Guardian in Scotland on certain days to deal with the backlog of Powers of Attorney needing processed can be found here.

The term “another week” does not seem appropriate as the title to this blog.

I do not remember all that much about the 1979 referendum and I was living in Chicago during the 1997 referendum.  Odd to think how much I do still remember about Argentina 78.  This week’s announcement ensures that 2014 will now be added to Scotland’s constitutional dateline.  A yes vote in the Autumn of 2014 leads to an independent Scotland by May 2016.  That is why this is not just another week.

What does a yes vote mean?  A yes vote means a Scottish Exchequer.  I have written about a Scottish Exchequer regularly over the last few years including in these blogs and the fiscal powers papers I co-authored with Reform Scotland.  Creating a Scottish Exchequer is not going to happen overnight.  We do though need to start somewhere.  Let’s start with the question: do we need separate HMRC and HM Treasury type bodes?  No.

We also need to look at what other institutions an independent or even a fiscally autonomous Scotland might need.  For example a one stop shop for all Scottish Government legal, registration and tax services.

We also now have to thinking about practicalities.  Would I copy en masse the UK tax legislation as exists in 2014 and declare that no changes will be made for two years?  Yes. This will ensure a degree of certainty for the general public and the business community.  Another advantage is that it would take some pressure off the new Scottish Exchequer.

I am sure I will come back to these and many other issues in the coming weeks and months.

I read with interest that Jeremy Paxman compared Scotland with Zimbabwe in an interview with the First Minister earlier this week.  I remember a similar point being put when I was giving evidence to the Calman Commission.  The transcript for this, page 478, can be found here.

Now to a question I was asked earlier this week.   How would I explain “devo max”.  Two areas need to be looked at.   Government spending and control over taxation.  The percentage that the Scottish Parliament has over each of these areas gives a good idea of how much autonomy it has.   Presently the Scottish Parliament has control over 60% of all government spending but only 7% of taxation.   The Scotland Bill increases taxation control to around 30%.   The latest Reform Scotland proposal, “devolution plus”, moves this closer to 70% for both government spending and control over taxation.  Fiscal autonomy or “devo max” would be around 90% for both government spending and control over taxation.  Fiscal autonomy does not reach 100% because control of VAT cannot be devolved with European Union states and foreign affairs, defence and some economic matters would still be controlled by Westminster.

The Liberal Democrats concerted campaign to dominate the news coverage in the run up to the March UK Budget  continued apace this week.   This week it was the UK Business Secretary, Vince Cable, calling for a mansion tax to be introduced on properties worth over £2 million.  It is estimated that a mansion tax could raise as much as £1.7 billion a year.  Nick Clegg, it is reported, also wants to speed up plans plans to increase the level at which income tax becomes payable, from its current £7,475 to £10,000.   This is presently scheduled for 2015.

Now to Europe.  I have previously blogged on how hard Ireland has had to fight to retain its low rate of corporation tax as a result of its bailout.  What is less well known is how the bailout might impact the Irish legal system.  Excellent article on this in the Law Society Gazette which can be found here.

Now to England and Eric Pickles, UK Communities Secretary, saying that councillors have a “moral duty” to sign up to the UK Government’s council tax freeze.  A moral duty to sign up to government policy.  A tax policy no less.  Interesting tactic.  Not surprisingly this has not gone down well with many English councillors.

More on business rates this week and the debate, for debate read spat, between the STUC and the FSB on the “Small Business Bonus Scheme”.  More on this can be found here.   Good to see that neither side used “morality” in their arguments.

Scottish Water has announced that its charges are to be frozen for the fourth year in a row.  The move means the average annual household charge from April in Scotland will remain at £324.  This is the same level it was in 2009-10.

Some more good news.   The UK Government has agreed to an income tax exemption for non UK competitors at the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games.   This is something I have blogged about before and takes away another point of potential conflict between the Scottish and UK Governments.   Now that agreement has been reached on this and the fossil fuel levy fund I wonder which other niggly issue could be dealt with next?  How about adding aggregates duty, air passenger duty, corporation tax and alcohol duty to the Scotland Bill?  Likely to happen?  No.

One last point.  If you have still not dealt with your tax return please do so as soon as possible even though HMRC have effectively put back the deadline for two days due to possible strike action.  HMRC’s new penalty regime is not something you want to have to deal with.

Have a good weekend.

Inner House case considering an agreement between NCP and EDI for a development at Castle Terrace car park in Edinburgh. The agreement involved EDI being interposed into a lease of the subjects between the City of Edinburgh Council and NCP in return for a capital payment of £5m and then using its close links with the City of Edinburgh Council (EDI being wholly owned by the Council) to deliver the development.

In terms of the agreement, EDI were obliged to “use all reasonable endeavours” expected of “a normal experienced prudent developer in the circumstances” to pursue the development. However, the development did not take place and, as it was entitled to do under the agreement, EDI served notice on NCP requiring NCP to buy back the tenant’s interest under the lease. NCP failed to do so contending that they were not obliged to serve the appropriate notice[1] as EDI were in material breach of the agreement having failed to comply with their obligation to use all reasonable endeavours.  NCP argued that EDI had approached the project as if they merely had an option to pursue the development rather than an obligation compelling them to undertake it. The question for the court was whether EDI had met the required standard.

The Inner House upheld Lord Glennie’s judgement that EDI had met the standard and found that the work they carried out and the assessment they reached were not significantly different from those to be expected of a normal experienced prudent developer in the circumstances. In particular, EDI could not be criticised for failing to pursue further steps in relation to any of four alternative sites since (on the evidence heard by Lord Glennie) such further steps would have been futile. It was clear from the papers available to the court that the problem of finding alternative car parking space was critical to unlocking the development and it had not been possible to identify alternative provision for car parking.

The Court also said the following on the standard of effort required from the Council:

“In our opinion it is clear that the obligation to pursue a project or seek a planning consent with all reasonable endeavours is one that requires the court to consider whether there were reasonable steps which the obligant could have taken but did not. For that reason it is a higher or more onerous obligation than one restricted to using “reasonable endeavours”. However, whether the phrase used is “all reasonable endeavours… or “reasonable  endeavours” we agree with the view expressed by Lord Hodge in MacTaggart & Mickel Homes Ltd v Hunter… that an obligation in either terms does not require the obligant to disregard its own commercial interests. Where the balance between the obligation to use reasonable endeavours and countervailing commercial considerations falls to be struck depends on the wording of the obligation in question. In considering what steps would be reasonable, the court also has to consider whether any further steps would have been successful. We agree with Lord Hodge… that if an obligant can show that it would have been useless for it to have taken a particular step (or steps), because it would not have been sufficient to achieve success, that would provide an answer to any claim that the obligant had acted in breach of contract… Equally if there was an insuperable obstacle, it is irrelevant that there may have been other obstacles which could have been overcome, or at any rate in respect of which the obligant had not yet done all that could reasonably be expected of it to try to overcome.”

 The full judgement is available from Scottish Courts here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.

Given that I am working in Dundee this week this seems like the best place to start.  Dundee is also my favourite Scottish city.  The plans for the town centre and the waterfront are very impressive.

So why is Dundee in the news this week?  Scottish Finance secretary John Swinney named a series of “hubs” where incentives will be offered to companies in manufacturing, life sciences and low carbon renewable energy.   The ports of Dundee and Leith is one of two low carbon and renewables areas proposed.   A number of questions remain to be answered including what are these “incentives”.  For example a reduction in business rates?  The announcement from the Scottish Government can be found here.

Also on business rates. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce called for the planned rise in business rates to be reconsidered.  The rate is planned to rise by 5.6% in April with the figure based on last September’s inflation rate.  This week saw the CPI rate of inflation fall to 4.2%.