Christian Peter Candy v The Commissioners for HMRC

Christian Peter Candy v The Commissioners for HMRC

Section 44(9) of the Finance Act 2003 does not operate as an exception to the 12-month time limit for amending land transaction returns imposed by Schedule 10, paragraph 6(3). The word 'afterwards' in section 44(9) is not intended to disapply the time limit, and claims for repayment must be made within the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Christian Peter Candy; Respondents: The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Stamp Duty Land Tax, Statutory Interpretation, Self Assessment Tax Returns, Time Limits for Tax Repayment Claims
Tax Law Stamp Duty Land Tax Statutory Interpretation Self Assessment Tax Returns Time Limits for Tax Repayment Claims

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christian Peter Candy

Appellant

The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim for repayment of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) under section 44(9) of the Finance Act 2003, made by amendment to a return, is subject to the 12-month time limit in Schedule 10, paragraph 6(3) of the Finance Act 2003 or can be made at any time after substantial performance is not carried into effect.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 44(9) of the Finance Act 2003 does not operate as an exception to the 12-month time limit for amending land transaction returns imposed by Schedule 10, paragraph 6(3). The word 'afterwards' in section 44(9) is not intended to disapply the time limit, and claims for repayment must be made within the prescribed period. The statutory scheme intends for procedural time limits to apply to such claims, and there is no basis for reading section 44(9) as providing otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.