Private Residence Relief (PRR) is a very useful relief for taxpayers and prevents Capital Gains Tax from being paid on the sale of a primary residence in most cases.  There are aspects of the rules which can be complex and these continue to cause difficulties for some taxpayers.

In a recent First-tier Tribunal case, Fountain & Anor v HMRC, the Tribunal found that the taxpayers in question were not entitled to claim PRR relief in respect of their disposal of a building plot, which they had argued was part of the grounds of the house.

The taxpayers owned an area of land behind their home which had previously been used in their haulage business. The business was closed and subsequently part of the property was divided into five building plots. Most of the plots were sold or gifted in 2006 and a new home was built on one of the plots for the Fountains, who moved in in January 2007. Their previous residence was then sold in February 2007 together with a field. The last plot (named ‘Plot 2’) was sold later, in December 2009 and led to the Tribunal case.

The taxpayers argued that Plot 2 formed part of the garden or grounds of their new residence on the basis that they were on the same title deed and the plot had formed part of the garden of their original home and continued to be used for their domestic use and enjoyment.

The Tribunal agreed that Plot 2 had indeed formed part of the grounds of their original home, however they did not believe this was relevant to the disposal in question. They also found that being on the same title was irrelevant.

The Tribunal found that Plot 2 was uncultivated and was physically separated from their new house by a separate plot which had a further house built on it and had been fenced off. They did not believe that Plot 2 has ever formed part of the garden or grounds of the new house.  No private residence relief was due and the appeal was therefore dismissed.

When dealing with PRR claims, it is important to thoroughly analyse the facts of the specific case and take previous case law into account.  Such planning at the time could help to prevent a nasty surprise in the future.  Eaves and Co would be delighted to assist if you have any queries on disposing of your home and the tax implications.

In the recent case of J Day & A Dalgety, two taxpayers had sold three properties that they owned together. The case concerned negligence and penalties for carelessness, as they did not include any details of capital gains relating to the property sales on their returns.  They argued that this was because the gains were below the annual exemption and therefore did not realise that they needed to be included.

One of the taxpayers also claimed that one of the houses sold was their only or main residence and that Private Residence Relief (PRR) should have been available.

HMRC raised discovery assessments and levied penalties for carelessness on both taxpayers, which they appealed.

The First-tier Tribunal agreed that the taxpayers had been careless in not including details on the returns.  The taxpayers made a number of errors in their calculations, including attempting to deduct mortgage fees, claiming they were deductible under TCGA 1992, s 38(1)(c).  However, the tribunal found that such costs were not included in the list of “incidental costs” in s 38(2) and were therefore not allowable.

In terms of the PRR claim, the tribunal found that the first taxpayer had not lived in the property with any degree of permanence or continuity as required by the relevant case law (Goodwin v Curtis [1998] STC 475).  No notice had been given to HMRC or to his employers that he had moved house and no invoices were addressed to him at the property.

The Tribunal dismissed the taxpayers’ appeals, agreeing with HMRC that both taxpayers had been negligent in preparing their tax returns by not including details of the property disposals.

It is important to ensure that proper care is taken with filing self-assessment tax returns and all relevant sources of income or gains are included where required in order to mitigate the risk of penalties.    Eaves and Co would be happy to assist if you or your clients have any concerns.

Private Residence Relief (PRR), formerly known as Principle Private Residence Relief (PPR) can often be a cause for contention between taxpayers and HMRC and this was proven again in the recent case of Dr S Iles and Dr D Kaltsas v HMRC (TC03565).

The outcome of the case is unlikely to be a shock to most practitioners who are familiar with the PRR rules; however it does show the disparity between what taxpayers/clients might expect.

Facts

The taxpayers in the case owned an investment flat which they had acquired in 1999 and let until they decided to sell the property in 2007.

Contracts were exchanged on 9 July 2008 with the sale completing on 25 July 2008. Having also sold their main residence, the taxpayers moved into the flat in question on 1 July 2008.

They were therefore present in the flat for 25 days and sought to claim PPR relief on the basis that it was their only residence during that period, and therefore eligible for exemption for the final 36 months of ownership.

HMRC argued that the 25 day period of occupation was not enough to demonstrate that they intended to reside there, particularly as the flat was for sale and an offer had been accepted.

Decision

The tribunal agreed that the temporary nature of the occupation did not amount to “residence” for the purposes of the legislation; the taxpayers did not feel the property met their needs, had already found a suitable alternative and had already agreed to sell the property before moving in. The taxpayers’ appeal was therefore dismissed.

This case appears to be fairly straightforward as the occupation was so obviously temporary. Problems can arise in determining where to draw the line as to what constitutes permanent residence and it is therefore always worth seeking professional advice.

D Morgan (TC2596)

The first-tier tribunal case dealt with the taxpayer’s claim for principal private residence relief (PPR). The area of contention was whether the taxpayer’s occupation of the property was sufficient to justify its description as his residence for PPR purposes.

The key message from the outcome of this case is that, according to the tribunal, it is a taxpayer’s intention, and not the quality of the occupation, that is more important in determing whether the relief applies.

Background

The taxpayer purchased the property with the intention of moving into it with his fiancée, and making it their marital home. However, shortly before completion his fiancée broke off the engagement suddenly, giving no explanation.

The taxpayer, on the lack of evidence to the contrary, felt that his fiancée was merely having cold feet. He assumed that they would soon reconcile and she would move into his new house with him. He therefore went ahead with the property purchase and moved in.

Some weeks later it became apparent that they were not going to reconcile as she was seeing someone else. The taxpayer, whilst purchasing the property in his own name, had budgeted on his fiancée paying for groceries and household bills etc. As a result this left him in financial trouble and he had to assess his options.

After living in the property 3 months the taxpayer moved back in with his parents and rented the property out. The property was rented out for just under 5 years, at which point the taxpayer moved back in with the intention of selling the property. The property was then sold within 4 months.

HMRC assessed the taxpayer to capital gains tax on the gain, saying that the two periods he had stayed in the property had been temporary and it therefore did not qualify for principal private residence relief.

The taxpayer appealed.

Ruling

The tribunal said the case was “extremely finely balanced”. It was their view that it is not the ‘quality’ of the occupation, but the intention of the occupier that matters when determining whether or not the property is an individual’s principal private residence.

If Mr Morgan had moved into the property fully furnished, and all the bills had been addressed to him personally, and if he had already intended to let the property, then the quality of his occupation would be irrelevant.

The tribunal accepted the taxpayer’s assertion that he had hoped, when he occupied the house, that his fiancée might return. Therefore when purchasing the property he had intended for it to become his principal private residence.

After learning his fiancée would not be returning, an early repayment charge clause in the mortgage made it clear it would have been financially unviable to sell the property straightaway. Therefore the tribunal said that it was understandable that, after he found the cost of living too high, the taxpayer decided to let the property and move back in with his parents.

The taxpayer’s appeal was allowed and he was entitled to principal private residence relief.