fbpx

Self-Builders Achieve Landmark Victory in Capital Gains Tax Appeal

17th August 2022 By

In a ruling which will be greeted with joy by the growing community of self-builders, a couple who made a very handsome return on their ‘Grand Designs’-style project have been relieved of a six-figure Capital Gains Tax (CGT) bill.

The couple bought a plot of land for £1,679,000 before demolishing the house that stood on it and replacing it with a new residence. The project lasted for the best part of three years and, following completion, the couple lived in their new home for about 14 months before they sold the property for £5,995,000.

There was no dispute that the new home was their principal private residence (PPR) and that they were therefore entitled to relief from CGT. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), however, decided that they were entitled to only partial relief and that they had made a chargeable gain of £541,821. The couple appealed against that conclusion to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).

The case hinged on the meaning of the phrase ‘period of ownership’ – as used in the relevant provisions of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 – where a house that is sold has been lived in since completion, but the land on which it is built has been owned for considerably longer than the existence of the house.

HMRC took the view that the couple’s period of ownership began on the day they bought the land and that PPR relief was therefore only available in respect of the shorter period after the new house was complete. The couple argued that the period of ownership began when the house was signed off as finished. They had thereafter lived in the house for all but four days prior to its sale.

Upholding the couple’s appeal, the FTT found that the period of ownership referred to in the legislation related to the new house, rather than the land. It noted that, prior to completion of the building works, there was no house in existence that the couple could have occupied as their PPR. Their interpretation of the statutory provisions accorded both with their natural meaning and their purpose: to enable the proceeds of sale of a residence to be invested in a new residence.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...

Flat Owner Not Liable for Pre-existing Structural Issues

16th April, 2024 By

When building owners carry out works on their property, are they liable for damage to adjoining properties that results from pre-existing structural issues? The Court of Appeal recently provided welcome clarification on that question. The owner of a ground-floor flat wished to extend it by building out into his garden. He served notices on owners of adjoining properties, as required by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The works caused the rear wall of two adjoining properties to drop by about 2 mm, which led to internal walls and floor...