EIM08001 - Employment income: transfer of real property to employees: Langham v Veltema
Section 62 ITEPA 2003
Where land is transferred by an employer to an employee at less than its market value, this usually represents earnings chargeable under Section 62 ITEPA 2003 equal to its open market value less what the employee pays for it (see EIM00540 onwards). Land includes a house and most other forms of residential property, for example a flat.
Referral to District Valuer (DV)
In all cases where land is transferred to a director or
employee, an Inspector must consider whether the transfer is at
full value and, if not, whether the undervalue is a profit from the
directorship or employment. Where the property is in the United
Kingdom the Valuation Office
must be consulted (not on form CG20) in
all cases where the transfer appears to be at less
than full market value.
Failure to consult the DV as soon as the information is
available may result in the expiry of time limits before tax can be
assessed on employment income.
In Langham v Veltema, (STC3717), an SA return submitted by a
director showed ahouse transferred to him for £100,000. There
was nothing on the return to indicate the basis for this valuation.
The Inland Revenue should have consulted the DV, but it did not do
so. Subsequently the company accounts were submitted showing the
£100,000 value on transfer of the property, and the Inland
Revenue requested an opinion on the valuation from the DV. The DV
agreed with the taxpayer a valuation of £145,000.
By the date of agreement of the valuation the time limit had
expired for the Inland Revenue to amend the taxpayer’s SA
return to include the full transfer value of £145,000. A
further assessment for £45,000 was raised on the basis that
the Inland Revenue could not have been expected from the
information on the return to know the transfer took place at
undervalue. The taxpayer appealed on the basis that the time limit
for the Revenue to amend his self assessment had expired and there
were no grounds for the issue of a “discovery”
assessment since the transfer had been disclosed in the SA return.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, as the return had
not alerted the Revenue to the possible insufficiency of the self
assessment, so the Inspector could not have been reasonably
expected to be aware of it, without consulting the DV. Hence when
the true value of the house came to light later, the Revenue was
justified in issuing a “discovery” assessment.
Nonetheless if the DV had been consulted at the proper time
it would have been apparent, before expiry of the relevant time
limits for amending the self assessment, that the transfer took
place at undervalue. Consequently this case should serve as a
reminder that when an asset is transferred between an employer and
an employee, the DV must be consulted immediately for an opinion of
the valuation provided.
For more information on consulting the DV see
EIM08002.
