TC09585 - [2025] UKFTT 00867 (TC)

Fecha: 15-Jul-2025

Concluding comments in relation to our findings of fact

Concluding comments in relation to our findings of fact

81.

We do not think that we are precluded from making any of the above three findings of fact by any finding of primary fact in the FTT Decision.

82.

As regards the first two findings – to the effect that the Appellant was provided with living accommodation because he was caring for his father and that it was necessary for him to live in his parent’s home in order to do so – it is true that they sit rather uncomfortably with the conclusion drawn by the FTT in the FTT Decision to the effect that the Appellant had not been provided with living accommodation by reason of employment but rather by reason of family ties. However:

(1)

we consider that that conclusion was not a finding of primary fact but rather a conclusion of law;

(2)

alternatively, even if it was not a conclusion of law but rather an inference of fact based on the primary facts found by the FTT, in remitting the case to us, the UT have instructed us to disregard inferences which were drawn by the FTT from the primary facts in the FTT Decision;

(3)

furthermore, in remitting the case to us, the UT have given the parties permission to adduce additional evidence so that it follows that we are entitled, and indeed obliged, to take that additional evidence into account in making our findings of fact, even if our findings of fact contradict a finding of primary fact in the FTT Decision; and

(4)

finally, in any event, the UT cannot have thought that the first two findings of fact which we have made were unsustainable in the light of the terms on which it has remitted the case to us because, had it considered that to be the case, that would have been determinative of the issue in relation to Section 222(8) of the TCGA and there would thus have been no need for the UT to have made that remission.

83.

Our third finding of fact – to the effect that, when the Appellant acquired each Property, his intention was that in due course he would occupy the relevant Property as his only or main residence and that intention subsisted for a specified period of time – is much more obviously contrary to a finding of primary fact made by the FTT in the FTT Decision because, in paragraph [109] of the FTT Decision, the FTT found that the Appellant did not intend that any of the Properties would be his main residence. However, as we have already noted in paragraph 39(4) above, in paragraph [84] of the UT Decision, the UT noted that the finding of primary fact made by the FTT in paragraph [109] of the FTT Decision had been made in the context of the FTT’s consideration of the exemption in Section 222(1) of the TCGA and that, whilst it appeared to be unhelpful to the Appellant’s case in relation to the Intention Condition in Section 222(8) of the TCGA, the finding could not simply be read across from one exemption regime to the other. In addition, similar points to those set out in paragraphs 82(3) and 82(4) above can be made in relation to that third finding of fact. So far as concerns the point made in paragraph 82(3) above in this context, we note in particular the reservations expressed by the UT in paragraph [85] of the UT Decision as regards the determination by the FTT of the Appellant’s intentions without an oral hearing.

84.

For the reasons set out in paragraphs 82 and 83 above, we consider that we are entitled to make each of the three findings of fact set out above.