Off-Plan Flat Buyer Wins Full CGT Relief in Test Case

29th January 2020 By

Can a purchaser of a property be said to ‘own’ it after contracts are exchanged but before the transaction is completed? The Court of Appeal’s answer to that fundamental question delivered a substantial Capital Gains Tax (CGT) saving to an off-plan flat buyer.

In 2006, the buyer entered into a contract to take a 125-year lease of a flat at a price of £575,000, paying a 10 per cent deposit. It was at that time no more than an empty space. The development was delayed by the credit crunch and it was not until 2010 that the purchase was completed and the buyer moved in.

The buyer occupied the flat for two years before selling it. In reliance on Sections 222 and 223 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, he claimed that no CGT was payable on the transaction because the flat was his main residence throughout his period of ownership.

In raising a demand for £61,383 in CGT against him, however, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) took the view that he became the flat’s owner on exchange of contracts in 2006. His CGT relief was accordingly reduced in proportion to the period thereafter when he was not occupying the property. The buyer successfully appealed against the demand to the First-tier Tribunal, but that ruling was subsequently reversed by the Upper Tribunal.

In upholding the buyer’s challenge to that outcome, the Court found that HMRC’s interpretation of the phrase ‘period of ownership’, as it appears in Section 223, would have perverse results. Lengthy gaps between exchange of contracts and completion of property transactions are by no means uncommon and, if HMRC’s arguments were correct, ordinary homeowners would rarely qualify for full CGT relief. Such a result, the Court found, would not accord with the intention of Parliament.

The Court ruled that a person who contracts to buy a property cannot be said to own it, in that he will generally have no right to possess, occupy or use it, let alone make it his only or main residence, prior to completion. The flat in question did not come into existence as a habitable property until shortly before the buyer moved in and his period of ownership thus did not commence until the date of completion. He was therefore entitled to full CGT relief on the sale of the property.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...