The How is mentioned but interestingly is not clearly distinguished re the separate title point, which was a key factor here. It also does not say if the licence was physically signed before or after the time of actual completion on the completion day and that may be a distinguishing factor re Brandbros.
Overall, on balance, this looks like the right decision to me because it's just happenstance really that this bit of land that was acquired with the dwelling and its grounds happened to be adjacent to it as it was not on the evidence otherwise integral/connected/of significant use or enjoyment to it. (That said, it would not surprise be if the UT overturned it for being too similar to the How and disregarded the separate title point.)
https://assets.savills.com/properties/GBHERSHES170191/HES170191_LAC18003...
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/details/england-63848079-924387...
https://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j12744/TC...
Related resources
Replies (4)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Possibly not the same person: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2008/lr20718.htm
I agree the conclusion appears the right one, I do think there was an element of throwing everything onto the wall to see what sticks, namely the lease to allow a neighbour access to the paddocks, and as you say, the timings are unclear which I would have thought was important, what with SDLT being based on the day of the transaction, so no lease, no business use argument.
Also of note, HMRC doing their usual of confusing "their gut feelings" with "facts" and annoying the Tribunal by suggesting the estate was an equestrian centre despite all the evidence to the contrary.
The UT agreed (with Jason and me) that this was not an (Edwards v
Bairstow) obviously wrong FTT decision.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6682764e97ea0c79abfe4dc4/...
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/hmrc-hedging-its-bets-in...
Although possibly HMRC will appeal to that graveyard for taxpayers, the CoA (although that will be very much an uphill struggle for HMRC, as the UT's reasoning on Edwards v Bairstow is pretty clear).