TC09535 - [2025] UKFTT 00595 (TC)

The evidence shows that this was the case.

The burden then shifts to the appellant to show that she has been overcharged.

It is clear from the evidence that the property rental business carried on from the property was carried on exclusively by the appellant. Her former husband, whilst he might have benefited from mortgage and other debt repayments for which he was jointly liable, was not carrying on the business with the appellant. The appellant has provided no evidence that her former husband was involved in, or even aware of, the carrying on of the property rental business.

The presumption that income is shared jointly between husband and wife only applies where they are living together, and clearly this was not the case during the period when the property was let out.

Furthermore, the FHL exclusion applies in this case. The property was clearly let out on a commercial basis. It was furnished, and a calculation of the availability of the property and the dates on which it was actually let, for the relevant periods, shows that the property was qualifying holiday accommodation.

The appellant received the income from the lettings and was therefore the person who is liable to tax on that income.

As regards the solar panels, these were installed prior to the property being let, and thus the loan repayments were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the property rental business. Furthermore, the appellant has provided no evidence that the installation of the solar panels was for the purpose of letting the property and thus any revenue expense cannot qualify for deduction under the pre-trading expenditure rules.