In C Candy [2020] UKFTT 113 (TC) (26 February) the FTT ruled (in favour of the taxpayer) that the 12 month limit for amending an SDLT return is extended where SDLT was paid because a contract was substantially performed but the contract is later rescinded.
In J Ashfield [2020] UKFTT 110 (TC) (21 February) the FFT held that for a notice to be validly served by email it needs to be actually received by the intended recipient. This was not the case where an email was received by a server but blocked by a firewall. Notice of appeal had therefore not been validly served. However the taxpayer was granted permission for late notification of appeal.
In C Candy [2020] UKFTT 113 (TC) (26 February) the FTT ruled (in favour of the taxpayer) that the 12 month limit for amending an SDLT return is extended where SDLT was paid because a contract was substantially performed but the contract is later rescinded.
In J Ashfield [2020] UKFTT 110 (TC) (21 February) the FFT held that for a notice to be validly served by email it needs to be actually received by the intended recipient. This was not the case where an email was received by a server but blocked by a firewall. Notice of appeal had therefore not been validly served. However the taxpayer was granted permission for late notification of appeal.
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")