首页> 外文期刊>Accountancy >FTT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER CONTRACTUAL SETTLEMENT
【24h】

FTT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER CONTRACTUAL SETTLEMENT

机译:FTT对合同和解没有管辖权

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In the case of Morris & Anor v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT993 (TC), Mrs Morris and Mrs Gregson (the appellants) inherited a farm from their deceased brother which was valued at £650,000 on 28 January 2005 (the date of the brother's death). The farm was sold for £800,000 in March 2006.The appellants' solicitors became concerned that the disposal of the farm had been treated incorrectly for capital gains tax (CGT) purposes. In particular, that a capital gain possibly arose from the fact that the disposal proceeds were £800,000 but the base cost was £650,000. On 25 July 2009, Gregson, on the advice of her accountants, submitted an estate return making a claim to capital losses of some £18,000. This was on the basis of a claim under Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s191, that the sale proceeds be substituted for the probate value at the date of death. HMRC rejected the claim on capital losses.
机译:在Morris&Anor诉Revenue&Customs [2014] UKFTT993(TC)一案中,Morris太太和Gregson太太(上诉人)从其死兄弟那里继承了一个农场,该农场于2005年1月28日(即哥哥的死)。该农场于2006年3月以80万英镑的价格售出。上诉人的律师开始担心该农场的处置没有得到正确的资本利得税(CGT)处理。特别是,出售收益为80万英镑,但基本成本为65万英镑,因此可能产生了资本收益。 2009年7月25日,格雷格森(Gregson)在其会计师的建议下,提交了一份遗产申报表,要求赔偿资本损失约18,000英镑。这是根据1984年《遗产税法》第191条提出的主张,即以销售收入代替去世时的遗嘱认证价值。 HMRC拒绝了资本损失索赔。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Accountancy》 |2014年第1456期|19-21|共3页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号