TCGA S222(8)

.

Didn't find your answer?

Client lived in a property in the UK. He obtained a position in the EU - originally intended to be for 2 years, which required him to reside there, and he and his wife moved to the EU for his job. They purchased a property in the EU. The property in the UK was retained, the intention being that they would return to it when his contract ended. As it happens, he worked in the EU for 20 years. His wife returned to the UK and the UK property after 10 years, and he returned when his contract ended. No PRR election was made. Prior to his return, the EU property was sold. (the EU property was held in his sole name). He was non-UK resident during this period.

Now, they are selling the UK property.

TCGA S222(8A) specifies that job-related accommodation, "is provided for him by reason of his employment, or for his spouse or civil partner by reason of the spouse's or civil partner's employment,". It does not say provided by who, and so does not discount the possibility of it being provided for him by himself.

The only case I can find that touches this specific point is TC00927 - Alexandra Bradley, which dismissed the job-related accommodation argument because she never resided in the property, and not because she owned it (which had it been the case that relief was denied because it was provided by the taxpayer for the taxpayer, I would have expected the tribunal to have concluded that it failed to be job-related accommodation without consideration of whether or not it was occupied as such).

Notwithstanding the period where our client and his wife lived apart (not in circumstances that were expected to be permanent), any thoughts on whether the EU property would be job-related, thus allowing PRR for the whole period in respect of the UK property?

 

Replies (3)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By bettybobbymeggie
24th May 2024 17:33

SteveHa wrote:
It does not say provided by who, and so does not discount the possibility of it being provided for him by himself.

Personally I think it would be a brave tax advisor that relied on this interpretation.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Tax Dragon
24th May 2024 18:06

I think it's inspired.

But hopeless. I see no reason why the assertion HMRC makes in the second paragraph of EIM11341 would not also apply in the context of s222(8). Or are you saying that condition was met?

But top marks for originality. And top marks also for having read s222B(11) before you posted. Not everyone would have.

Thanks (0)
By SteveHa
28th May 2024 13:16

I thought I might be clutching at straws, but worth a thought.

Thanks, both.

Thanks (0)