Culpability under FA03/SCH10/PARA8 will only be an issue if
there has been negligence in making the original land transaction
return.
Subsequent actions and behaviour cannot create negligence
retrospectively. However, any such failure to co-operate would
certainly be relevant to the consideration of the appropriate net
penalty loading for that negligence.
If the information had been sought using information powers,
then there are specific penalties relating to any failures (for
example, for failure to comply with an FA03/SCH10/PARA14 notice,
penalties under FA03/SCH10/PARA16 may be due. If that information
is negligently incorrect FA03/S95 may apply).
This may be done carelessly in which case there might be negligence or it might be done carefully, i.e. deliberately, in which case something more serious might be happening. Much depends on whether the failing is exceptional or typical behaviour and the compliance caseworker will have to take a view on this.
If the information is ambiguous and the compliance caseworker is
misled into believing the land transaction return is correct then
the purchaser has a duty to correct this.
Allowing an incorrect land transaction return to stand is
culpable. If the information is unambiguous then the reply may
amount to a lie, which takes it into potential fraud territory.