In Ms M Woods v HMRC (TC01505 – 10 November) a woman (W) submitted returns claiming rent-a-room relief under ITTOIA 2005 s 784 et seq. HMRC issued assessments and imposed penalties under TMA 1970 s 95 on the basis that the income did not qualify for relief. W appealed. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal finding that the property concerned was not W’s only or main residence as required by ITTOIA 2005 s 786(1).
Why it matters: ITTOIA 2005 s 786(1) provides that ‘rent-a-room’ relief is only due if ‘for some or all of that period the residence is the individual’s only or main residence’. The First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC’s view that that condition was not satisfied in this case.
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 Ms M Woods v HMRC (TC01505 – 10 November) a woman (W) submitted returns claiming rent-a-room relief under ITTOIA 2005 s 784 et seq. HMRC issued assessments and imposed penalties under TMA 1970 s 95 on the basis that the income did not qualify for relief. W appealed. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal finding that the property concerned was not W’s only or main residence as required by ITTOIA 2005 s 786(1).
Why it matters: ITTOIA 2005 s 786(1) provides that ‘rent-a-room’ relief is only due if ‘for some or all of that period the residence is the individual’s only or main residence’. The First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC’s view that that condition was not satisfied in this case.
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:
