Symonds v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 197 (TC) (16 March 2012)

Symonds v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 197 (TC) (16 March 2012)

The Tribunal accepted oral evidence and bank statements supporting £16,800 in property improvements as allowable expenditure but found no basis for allowing the 'gifted deposit' as a deduction, as it did not qualify under s.38 TCGA 1992 and was not an incidental cost of disposal.

Citation
[2012] UKFTT 197
Parties
Appellant: Howard Symonds; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Capital Gains Tax, Allowable Deductions, Property Improvements, Gifted Deposit, Computation of Chargeable Gains
Tax Law Capital Gains Tax Allowable Deductions Property Improvements Gifted Deposit Computation of Chargeable Gains

Case Brief

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howard Symonds

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether improvements to property are an allowable expense for capital gains tax purposes
  2. 2 Whether a 'gifted deposit' is an allowable expense for capital gains tax purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal accepted oral evidence and bank statements supporting £16,800 in property improvements as allowable expenditure but found no basis for allowing the 'gifted deposit' as a deduction, as it did not qualify under s.38 TCGA 1992 and was not an incidental cost of disposal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed in respect of costs claimed for improvements to the sum of £16,800.
  • The appeal is dismissed in respect of the claim of £60,040 as an allowable deduction.