Mrs Campbell’s evidence
Mrs Campbell’s evidence
The evidence of Mrs Campbell was as follows:
she confirmed that:
she was disabled and unable to look after her husband on her own. Her own health issues would sometimes flare up and render her incapable of looking after her husband;
consequently, it had been agreed that the Appellant would be employed as her husband’s carer and would reside in her home. He would stay there every night unless she was available (and able) to provide the necessary care;
however, the Appellant needed a home of his own to which he could escape when he was not needed to care for her husband and to which he could take her husband for a change of scene and to remain active when her husband’s health permitted it. Consequently, she had always encouraged the Appellant to have his own home and she would not have been keen for the Appellant to live in her home if he no longer needed to look after her husband. That was not to say that she would prevent the Appellant from staying in her home if the Appellant’s financial situation required it but, absent any such financial constraints, she would want him to have his own life in his own home;
the Appellant had suffered a serious car crash when he was 17 which left him with substantial and potentially life–threatening injuries. During that period, she and her husband had moved into intensive care for a brief period to be with him and to provide care. As a result of that, the relationship between the Appellant and her husband was particularly strong and there were many times when only the Appellant could get through to her husband; and
the Appellant’s brother could not live alone both because he did not have the financial means to do so and because of his mental health issues.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The FTT Decision
- The UT Decision
- Introduction to the issues
- issue one – the principal private residence exemption
- The legislation
- dwelling–house as his only or main residence
- where the accommodation is provided for the better performance of the duties of the employment, and it is one of the
- No part of a gain to which section 222 applies shall be a chargeable gain if the dwelling–house or part of a dwelling–house has been the individual's
- “The application of section 222(8) is to be determined by the FTT in relation to all four
- The reconsideration shall be on the basis of the findings of primary fact made in the
- Findings of fact in the FTT Decision
- The documentary evidence
- The medical evidence
- The contract of employment
- The Appellant’s email
- The photographs
- The Appellant’s evidence
- Mrs Campbell’s evidence
- Officer Weir’s evidence
- Our impression of the witnesses
- Our findings of fact
- we have reached the following relevant findings of fact for the purposes of this decision
- Was it necessary for the Appellant to stay in his parent’s home in order to provide care to his father
- The Appellant’s intention to occupy
- Concluding comments in relation to our findings of fact
- Discussion
- By reason of employment
- “There are many decisions on the meaning of “by reason of employment” including in particular Wicks v Firth 56 TC 318. In John Charman v HMRC [2021] EWCA Civ 1804 (“ Charman ”) the Court of Appeal sai
- There was little, if any, dispute between the parties as to the correct test to be applied to determine whether an interest is acquired “by reason of” employment. It is not necessary for HMRC to show
- In Charman , The Court of Appeal emphasised that the FTT’s evaluation of this issue can only be challenged on appeal on limited grounds, at [46]
- There are numerous other authorities to the same effect On 25 October 2023, the Supreme Court released its decision in HMRC v Vermilion
- “If one approaches the question by asking, as suggested by Oliver LJ in Wicks v Firth , what it was that enabled Mr Campbell to enjoy the ability to reside in the family home, we do consider that the
- Necessary for the performance of the duties of the employment
- The Intention Condition
- Conclusion
- issue two – the penalties
- The legislation
- The terms of the remittance
- “ We instruct the FTT to determine, by way of oral hearing (either in person or remote)
- The reconsideration shall be on the basis of the findings of primary fact made in the
- Findings of fact in the FTT Decision
- The evidence
- The correspondence
- The explanation of the Penalties
- The witness evidence
- Our findings of fact
- Discussion
- Reasonable excuse
- – see the UT decision in Perrin v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2018] UKUT 156 (TCC) (“ Perrin ”) at paragraphs [81] to [83]
- Special circumstances
- Conclusions
![TC09585 - [2025] UKFTT 00867 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)