Patrick Cannon: Why I started Cannon Chambers
2020 will be seen by historians as a year of disruption and seismic change but also a year of new beginnings. Nationally we were...
Read More >
I represented the taxpayers in this appeal where the tax tribunal decided that the refund of the 3% higher rates on the sale of a main residence following the acquisition of the replacement was not available when the taxpayers had purchased two side-by side apartments a few weeks apart with the intention of amalgamating them to form one apartment as their replacement main residence prior to the sale of their old main residence.
The decision has some helpful analysis of how to interpret the provisions in Schedule 4ZA FA 2003.
Read more here.