TC09530 - [2025] UKFTT 00566 (TC)

Fecha: 22-May-2025

and that no re–development of the Property has ever taken place

and that no re–development of the Property has ever taken place.

47.

For their part, the Appellants submit that the facts in the present case are readily distinguishable from those in Allam. They point out that:

(1)

in Allam, the company in question was primarily concerned with properties acquired for the purposes of obtaining rental income. It was not the case that the company intended to re–develop all of the properties which it owned and merely received rental income while it awaited planning; and

(2)

in contrast, in this case, during the relevant period, PSSL was simply a company which was preparing to start its trade of re–development and any non–trading activities were merely incidental in the context of its activities as a whole. This can be seen in:

(a)

the fact that SW and CP have previously established a number of other joint venture companies in order to develop residential property, none of which were formed in order to derive rental income;

(b)

the evidence of SW;

(c)

the statement in the directors’ reports for the 2017 AP and the 2018 AP to the effect that the principal activity of the company was property development; and

(d)

the active steps which the company took to ensure that planning permission for the re–development was obtained.