TC09585 - [2025] UKFTT 00867 (TC)

Fecha: 15-Jul-2025

The FTT Decision

The FTT Decision

13.

The FTT (Judge Natsai Manyarara) dealt with the appeals described above on the papers and issued its decision on 8 February 2022 under neutral citation [2022] UKFTT 00046 (TC) (the “FTT Decision”). It will be necessary to consider parts of the FTT Decision in some detail in due course but, for the moment, we would note only that, in the FTT Decision, the FTT concluded that:

(1)

the Appellant had not disposed of the Properties in the course of a trade and therefore he was not liable to income tax on the profits which he had made from the disposals;

(2)

as regards CGT:

(a)

there were two possible ways in which the Appellant might have qualified for the principal private residence exemption from CGT in relation to some or all of the gain on a Property. Those were that, at any time in his period of ownership, either:

(i)

the relevant Property had been his only or main residence; or

(ii)

he was residing in JRA and intended in due course to occupy the relevant Property as his only or main residence;

(b)

none of the Properties had been the Appellant’s only or main residence at any time;

(c)

the place where the Appellant had been residing throughout the time when he had owned each Property– the Appellant’s parent’s home – had not been JRA; and

(d)

therefore, the principal private residence exemption from CGT did not apply to any of the disposals;

(3)

each Discovery Assessment had been validly issued and the Appellant had not discharged the burden of proving that the quantum of tax assessed in either Discovery Assessment was incorrect;

(4)

the Closure Notice had been issued in the correct amount;

(5)

as regards the Penalties, the Appellant’s failure to notify his liability had been deliberate; and

(6)

the Penalties should be upheld.

14.

The Appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal (the “UT”) on the basis that the FTT had made errors of law in concluding that:

(1)

the principal private residence exemption from CGT based on his residing in JRA was inapplicable (“Ground 1”);

(2)

the Discovery Assessments had been validly made (“Ground 2”);

(3)

the Appellant’s failure to notify his liability had been deliberate (“Ground 3”)

and that the FTT had erred in law by failing to consider whether the Respondents’ decision in relation to the quantum of the Penalties was flawed and in not mitigating the Penalties in full (Ground 4”).