fbpx

Grand Design Couple Triumph in Capital Gains Tax Test Case

9th November 2018 By Arman Khosravi

Those who make a profit on the sale of their principal private residence do not have to pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on it. However, as a test case concerning a couple who built their own home showed, that apparently simple statement disguises a hinterland of complexity and that is why professional tax advice is a ‘must have’.

It took just over three years for the couple to complete their grand design. They then lived in the house as their principal private residence for about three years before selling it for more than £1.3 million. They did not declare any liability to CGT on their tax returns. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) took the view that such a liability did arise in respect of the period during which the house was under construction and that its omission from the tax returns was deliberately misleading. The couple were assessed to owe more than £40,000 in CGT and late payment penalties totalling over £20,000 were imposed.

In ruling on their challenge to that decision, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) noted an extra-statutory tax concession which applies to those who acquire land on which a house is built that they then use as their principal private residence. The exemption from CGT, however, only applies to building projects that take less than a year to complete, although that period can be extended to two years if there are good reasons for doing so. HMRC argued that, as the new house took three years to finish, the concession did not apply and CGT was payable in respect of the entire period of the construction works.

In upholding the couple’s appeal, however, the FTT found that HMRC’s interpretation of the concession would lead to startling and absurd results. A house building project that took 364 days to complete would be exempt from CGT, whereas another that was finished in 366 days would attract full liability to CGT.

The FTT found that, on a true interpretation of the concession, any gain accruing to the couple in the 24 months prior to them going into occupation fell within the concession and was therefore exempt from CGT. The FTT also concluded that the couple’s failure to declare the relevant CGT liability was not deliberate and was consistent with an innocent mistake.

The penalties were cancelled and the CGT payable reduced accordingly.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Retired Businessman's Final Will Ruled Invalid

2nd May, 2024 By

Having your will drawn up professionally by a qualified solicitor is always a sensible precaution, especially in later life. In a recent case, the High Court ruled that a retired businessman lacked testamentary capacity when he made a will less than three and a half years before he died at the age of 87. The man and his first wife were married for nearly 40 years and had four children. After her death he married again. In October 2015 he made a new will, revoking in most respects a will...

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,...