![TC09585 - [2025] UKFTT 00867 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
The Appellant’s email
The Appellant’s email
As we have previously noted in describing the history of the present proceedings at the start of this decision, the Appellant wrote to Officer Weir on 1 September 2017. In his email, which is reproduced below exactly as it was written, the Appellant said as follows:
“I write in reference to a letter I received from you this morning concerning the sale of my bungalow in 2015–16 which was the only property I owned.
I bought this property without having a survey and unfortunately it was a big mistake, The property had suffered water damage below which meant all floors needed removing which also meant that the kitchen and bathroom would also have to be removed, making it uninhabitable due to how the property was made with wooden floors it meant all the electrics where below and pipe work, so they all needed to be removed for concreate floors laying to prevent it from happening again.
While the work was being carried out I decided to have a fence fitted to the front and side as every day the neighbour was complaining about mess on his side of the drive etc, including grass blowing on his side from the first time I cut the lawn, I even had the fence fitted more on my side to try and placate him dispite his garage being built part on my land. (it didn’t work) since getting the fence fitted he would park blocking my drive access and as it was on a main road it would create a lot of trouble with other drivers keep stopping traffic trying to get in drive, It was at that point I decided I couldn’t live there with years of hassel day in day out. So I decided to have the kitchen and bathroom fitted as I was informed it would be unmortgagable with out them, and made other improvements to make it more sellable.
Whilst owning the property I owned NO other property and was living at home with my parents. I am a full time carer for my farther as my tax records will show,
If I can be of any further assistance please don’t hesitate to contact me.”
The Appellant’s statement
- 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