![UT/2023/000063 - [2024] UKUT 00307 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
hmrc’s submissions
hmrc’s submissions
For HMRC, Mr Ripley submitted as follows:
The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction in relation to this issue was limited. The ordinary meaning of common words is a question of fact not law. In any event, the FTT was required to carry out a multi-factorial evaluation, so the Upper Tribunal should be very slow to interfere in its decision.
The FTT took the correct approach, which accorded with a purposive construction of section 116, and clearly reached a decision which was within the reasonable range.
Guidance as to the approach to be adopted in relation to suitability for use is found in Fiander UT. Fiander UT did not propose a test of “minor repair”.
None of the authorities support the de minimis approach proposed by Mr Firth. In particular, the temporal approach produces fundamental difficulties.
Previous use of the building is a highly relevant factor.
Various extra-statutory materials support the FTT’s interpretation.
- Heading
- Introduction
- relevant legislation
- the ftt’s decision
- grounds of appeal
- repair and renovation: ftt decisions to date
- the appellants’ submissions
- hmrc’s submissions
- discussion
- Purposive construction
- Fiander UT
- Context
- Assessing suitability for use as a dwelling when building requires repair or renovation
- the ftt’s approach
- Conclusions