In Paul Gibson v HMRC [2013] TC03021, a taxpayer was denied Capital Gains Tax (CGT) Private Residence Relief (PRR) when he totally rebuilt and then sold his house. The First Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) found that he had acquired it wholly or partly for the purpose of realising a gain on disposal.

 Mr Gibson bought a house, with the financial assistance of a friend.

  • He lived in the house as his only home before applying for planning permission. He then demolished the house and rebuilt a substantially larger house.
  • He stayed in the house for four months finishing off works and then sold the house at a gain.
  • He claimed that the original plan was that his girlfriend would sell her house and then her parents would make a gift of cash and that would enable him to repay his friend and they could live together in the new house. However, that did not happen.
  • He also paid his friend a fee when the house was sold and also appeared to have other arrangements with his friend whereby he held two other houses on trust for the friend.

HMRC denied CGT relief on the basis that the house had been acquired wholly or partly for the purpose of realising a gain. It also assessed sizable penalties for negligence.

The FTT (composed of a Judge and a lay member) were split in making a decision, so the Judge's view held. Clearly, the judge was troubled by the evidence: the taxpayer’s unusual set-up with his friend and the fact that he paid him a fee after the disposal. However, the taxpayer failed to persuade the Tribunal that his occupation of the new house was any more than just 'camping' at the end of the build and so there was no quality of occupation to make the new dwelling a residence for s.223. On the facts, it decided that the house was acquired wholly or mainly for the purposes of realising a gain.

The taxpayer did not try to calculate his gain. so the tribunal accepted HMRC’s computation.

The penalty

Mr Gibson’s main argument was that he genuinely did not consider that he was required to return the capital gain in the circumstances. The tribunal was not persuaded that ignorance of his obligations as a taxpayer is of itself a reason for reducing the penalty. It was not persuaded that he had established any grounds for reducing the penalty imposed.

Useful guides on this topic

PRR: Private Residence Relief
This includes a summary of case law, a look at what evidence you need to suceed in making as appeal or claim as well as explaining the different conditions for relief

Tax penalties: error or mistake in a return
Freeview guide to the tax penalty regime

Tax penalties: grounds for appeal
A run through some successful and unsuccessful cases and a review of evidence

External links

Paul Gibson v HMRC [2013] TC03021

Squirrel ad

Are you enjoying our content? 

Thousands of accountants and advisers and their clients use as their primary TAX resource.

Register with us now to receive our unique FREE Tax Planning Tips and Advice Guide & our FREE OMB Newsletter.



Comments (0)

Rated 0 out of 5 based on 0 voters
There are no comments posted here yet

Leave your comments

  1. Posting comment as a guest.
Rate this post:
Attachments (0 / 3)
Share Your Location


Enjoying the Practical Tax content on 

Sign up now to receive a unique FREE Tax Planning Tips and Advice Guide & our FREE Newsletter.

.Squirrel ad