The medical evidence
The medical evidence
The medical evidence in relation to the Appellant’s father was as follows:
a letter dated 10 October 2012 from Dr Rhys Davies, a consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust;
a second letter from Dr Davies dated 6 February 2013;
a third letter from Dr Davies dated 23 October 2013;
a letter dated 2 May 2018 from Senior Nurse Practitioner Tracy Clarke of the North West Boroughs Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust who has been extensively involved with the Appellant’s father’s care from the start of his illness; and
a letter dated 9 May 2018 from Dr D A Royle of Birchwood Medical Centre.
The key points arising from the medical evidence were as follows:
the Appellant’s father first displayed symptoms of his illness, which is progressive, in 2007;
the nature of his illness was confirmed in 2010;
the Appellant has been employed as his father’s carer since April 2010 as his father refused care from anyone else. According to Nurse Clarke, due to the nature of his illness, “it [was] necessary for [the Appellant’s father] to receive full–time, around–the–clock care. The provision of temporary care and outside carers was initially considered, and [the Appellant’s father] secured a place at Hollins Park, however he did not respond well on arrival and became anxious at the thought of being away from his family. A decision was subsequently taken for the care services to be provided at the family home, and [the Appellant] was employed as [the Appellant’s father’s carer”;
in order to carry out the required care, it was necessary for the Appellant to live in his parent’s home while that care was provided. The Appellant could not properly perform his caring duties if he lived away from his parent’s home;
the Appellant’s mother also suffered from medical disabilities, could not always hear when her husband required assistance in the night and, when she could, was often physically unable to help;
in the months preceding his consultation with Dr Davies on 6 February 2013, the Appellant’s father had had a torrid time, suffering the death of his mother, a boiler fault at home, the death of his cat and an admission to hospital following a seizure; and
the symptoms had worsened between his visit to Dr Davies on 6 February 2013 and his visit to Dr Davies on 23 October 2013.
- 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)