In Mrs EM Ramsay v HMRC (TC01871 – 22 March) a married woman (R) had acquired a large house in Belfast which was divided into flats and let to tenants. In 2004 she transferred the house to a company. She claimed relief under TCGA 1992 s 162. Following an enquiry HMRC issued a ruling that no relief was due on the grounds that the property was an investment and was not a business. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed R’s appeal. Judge Huddleston held that ‘where an individual asserts that a business arises there is a presumption that unless proof of sufficient activity is established that it is not a business. That onus of proof rests on the appellant.’ On the evidence R’s activities were ‘normal and incidental to the owning of an investment property’...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Mrs EM Ramsay v HMRC (TC01871 – 22 March) a married woman (R) had acquired a large house in Belfast which was divided into flats and let to tenants. In 2004 she transferred the house to a company. She claimed relief under TCGA 1992 s 162. Following an enquiry HMRC issued a ruling that no relief was due on the grounds that the property was an investment and was not a business. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed R’s appeal. Judge Huddleston held that ‘where an individual asserts that a business arises there is a presumption that unless proof of sufficient activity is established that it is not a business. That onus of proof rests on the appellant.’ On the evidence R’s activities were ‘normal and incidental to the owning of an investment property’...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
