The Commissioners for HMRC v Gerald Lee
[2023] UKUT 242 (TCC)
Sabbir Patwary v The Commissioners for HMRC
16 January 2024
[2024] UKFTT 53 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone tried to get a tax break for selling their house (PPR). They said they lived there, but didn't have enough proof like bills or statements to show it. The court said they didn't prove they lived there, so they didn't get the tax break.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning Principal Private Residence Relief (PPR) for the sale of 19 Emmott Close, London.
- •HMRC disallowed PPR claim for the year ended 5 April 2016.
- •Appellant claimed PPR and lettings relief; HMRC did not contest lettings relief due to an administrative error.
- •Tax at stake: £43,199.80 on a gain of £202,170.
- •Appellant lived with parents until April 2010, then purchased 19 Emmott Close.
- •Appellant claimed to live at 19 Emmott Close from April 2010 to October 2013, with his girlfriend and a tenant.
- •Property was rented out from October 2013 and sold in February 2016.
- •Appellant's evidence was limited and insufficient to prove continuous residence at 19 Emmott Close.
Legal Principles
For PPR to apply, the dwelling-house must be, or have been at any time during ownership, the individual's only or main residence.
s222 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992
To qualify for PPR, a taxpayer must provide evidence showing some degree of permanence, continuity, or expectation of continuity of residence.
Goodwin v Curtis 70 TC 478
The burden of proof is on the Appellant to show that the assessment by HMRC is incorrect or excessive.
Tribunal's ruling
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof by providing insufficient evidence to demonstrate continuous residence at 19 Emmott Close for the relevant period. The evidence presented was considered weak and mainly related to ownership rather than actual residence.