Pawson case: Furnished lets will not get IHT relief

Hopes of major windfalls in the holiday letting industry were dashed when the upper tribunal overturned a first-tier ruling on business property relief in the case of HMRC v Pawson [2013] UKUT 050 (TCC).

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments

No IHT on FHL    1 thanks

sallycox | | Permalink

It would be a good idea if the government and HMRC were to decide once and for all about the status of FHLs. One minute they are a 'business' and qualify for the reliefs available to a business, and the next minute FHLs are not to be so treated.

How on earth can anyone plan for the future when such uncertainty prevails.

HMRC opinion

hiu612 | | Permalink

The uncertainty seems to stem from one of many examples of HMRC deciding to revise their interpretation of an established position without any change to the underlying legislation. A bit like their recent shift on the situs of loan notes and what not in offshore jurisdictions.

The uncertainty is an annoyance, although most people would (i think) agree that all but the most keenly staffed FHL's do generate their income wholly or mainly through the exploitation of an investment.

Fighting fund for appeal    2 thanks

Mike Truman | | Permalink

 

Because of the substantial costs that HMRC might apply for in any appeal, a fighting fund has been set up by Francis Clark LLP to try to take this case to the Court of Appeal.

Contributions in units of £250 (and preferably of about £1,000 or more) are being sought from those with clients who would be affected.

A purse of about £30,000 would be needed.

For more details, including arrangements for dealing with surplus funds, email Pawsonfightingfund@francisclark.co.uk

 

Certainty    5 thanks

Paulsoper | | Permalink

Sally suggests that parliament should clarify this 'once and for all' - in fact they already did when the legislation was introduced in 1984 - FHLs are a deemed trade for IT and CGT purposes but Capital Transfer Tax (as it then was) was expressly NOT included.  Since then certain barristers seem to have decided that BPR should be available but this can only be possible if the activity satisfies the existing IHT - as it now is - conditions.

I know I always bang on about history but it should be borne in mind that these provisions were made in the 1980s when furnished holiday lettings were, like ordinary furnished lettings, assessable as a miscellaneous source of income under the old Schedule D Case VI - they were not a trade.  The revenue had, as a matter of practice, previously treated them as though they were a trade until it was pointed out by the courts that the income was derived from the granting of underlying property rights (even if for only a week or a fortnight) and so, within the old case of Salisbury House Estates v Fry (1930) could not be trading income.

The Thatcher government reacted by creating the reliefs for FHLs but did NOT include CTT - I think parliament has made it pretty clear that unless the activity is carried on such that it qualifies as a business in its own right but NOT an investment then BPR will not be available and that's exactly what this case confirms.

lechiffre's picture

FHL "Additional services"

lechiffre | | Permalink

So what level of services is HMRC saying is necessary to qualify as a business for BPR ?

I have a client with 10+ letting units on one site, they provide full laundry and cleaning services and amenities like a pool etc. Is this enough? What more could (should) they do?

Thanks

 

 

The 'George' case

Paulsoper | | Permalink

Whether an activity is letting, at one extreme, or a trade at the other, was considered in the George case - George & Loochin (Stedman's exors) 2004 - one of a number of cases concerning residential caravan parks with holiday activity.  This seems the best guidance available at the moment...

nogammonsinanundoubledgame's picture

There was another case as I recall

nogammonsinanun... | | Permalink

Rashid v Garcia.

That was all about eligibility to join the Class 2 NIC club.  Don't expect it would be very helpful.

With kind regards

Clint Westwood

Good point from Clint...

Paulsoper | | Permalink

Given that Class 2 NIC is in point if you are in 'gainful employment other than as an employed earner' - it would be difficult to see how you could argue that you are NOT in business to trigger a Class 2 liability but IN business enough to get BPR.  Of course that is also why FHL is deemed to be trading for all purposes except BPR.