Main Residence Relief Victory – Introduction
In Andrew Nunn v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 298 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) ruled in favour of the taxpayer.
The case revolved around a property sale agreement between Mr Nunn and a developer, which took place before formal contracts were signed.
This decision could serve as a key reference for taxpayers entering into similar development agreements.
Background
Andrew Nunn purchased a property in Oxfordshire in 1995 for £120,000.
In 2015, he agreed to sell a portion of his garden to a developer, Michael Daly, for £295,000.
The developer planned to build two houses on the land and had already secured planning permission. Although heads of terms were agreed, formal contracts were delayed.
To facilitate construction, Mr Nunn signed a letter in June 2016 that allowed the developer to begin work while the formal contracts were being finalised.
Construction work commenced following this letter, and by September 2016, a formal sale contract was signed.
However, Mr Nunn faced an unexpected challenge when HMRC disallowed his claim for PPR relief, leading to a CGT charge of £72,633.80.
Mr Nunn subsequently appealed to the FTT, arguing that the land had remained part of his **private residence** at the time of disposal, and therefore should be eligible for PPR relief.
The FTT’s Decision
The FTT considered several critical issues in the case:
Relevant Date for Disposal
The Tribunal concluded that the relevant date for assessing whether PPR relief applied was 2 June 2016, the date on which Mr Nunn signed the letter permitting the developer to begin construction.
The Tribunal determined that this agreement altered Mr Nunn’s relationship with the land, which was no longer held for his own occupation.
Was the Land Part of Mr Nunn’s Garden?
The FTT held that on 2 June 2016, the land still formed part of Mr Nunn’s garden, as it had not yet been physically separated or developed.
The letter allowing construction did not immediately sever the land from his residence, and thus it still qualified for PPR relief.
CGT Disposal Date
The Tribunal ruled that for CGT purposes, the land was deemed disposed of on 2 June 2016, when the letter agreement was signed.
This was important as it meant the land was still considered part of Mr Nunn’s private residence on that date.
Penalty Assessment
Since the FTT ruled in favour of Mr Nunn’s claim for PPR relief, the penalty of £20,155.87 imposed by HMRC was set aside.
Key Legal Provisions
The case hinged on the interpretation of Section 222 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA), which provides relief from CGT for gains on the disposal of a private residence and its associated grounds.
The Tribunal also referred to Section 28A of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA) in relation to the enquiry and closure notice issued by HMRC.
Implications of the Case
This ruling is a welcome development for taxpayers who may find themselves in similar circumstances.
The case highlights the importance of the timing of key events, such as when development agreements are made and when works begin on the land.
Importantly, the Tribunal’s decision confirms that land may still qualify for PPR relief even if an agreement is in place for its future sale, as long as it remains part of the taxpayer’s garden at the time of disposal.
Main Residence Relief Victory – Conclusion
The FTT’s decision in favour of Andrew Nunn provides clarity on the application of PPR relief in cases involving property development agreements.
The case illustrates how the status of land at the time of disposal plays a crucial role in determining whether relief is available, and offers valuable guidance for taxpayers entering into similar agreements with developers.
Final Thoughts
If you have any queries about this article on Main Residence Relief or general tax matters in the UK, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the UK and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.