EIM08003 - Employment income: transfer of real property to employees: action following District Valuer's report
Section 62 ITEPA 2003
If the amount of the informal valuation provided by the District
Valuer (see
EIM08002) exceeds the consideration
paid, the Inspector should write to the employee advising him or
her that the amount of the excess represents earnings taxable under
Section 62 ITEPA 2003 for the year in which the land was
transferred. When this advice has been given the appropriate action
should be taken to tax the excess over the amount paid as
employment income.
If the valuation is disputed on appeal, the appellant should
be asked if he or she is employing a professional adviser to act on
his or her behalf and he or she may be informed that arrangements
will be made for the District Valuer to enter into formal
negotiations with him or her or with that adviser. Any agreed
valuation will be reported in due course by the District Valuer.
If agreement is not reached, the District Valuer will report
this, together with the reasons for the failure to reach agreement
and his or her opinion of the value that he or she considers could
be defended on appeal. If it seems that no agreement on valuation
is possible, and that the matter will need to be resolved by the
commissioners, ask the District Valuer to provide what is known as
a “defendable on appeal” valuation.
PAYE
Technical, together with the files of the employer and of the
employee concerned. The submission should either confirm that
liability has been accepted (so that the only point in dispute is
one of valuation) or detail any other disputed points that are
relevant to the appeal – for example, which section of charge
applies to any under-valuation which is established.
Jurisdiction for hearing of the appeal lies with the General
Commissioners (or, on election, to the Special Commissioners) and
not to the Lands Tribunal. Although valuation of the land may be a
major issue in the appeal, or perhaps the only issue if an
employment income liability is agreed in principle, the subject of
the appeal is a charge on employment income in the form of earnings
or benefits. Jurisdiction for the determination of employment
income liability rests with the Commissioners and there is no
option for the taxpayer to ask the Lands Tribunal to consider the
matter instead.
(This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the
Freedom of Information Act 2000)
