Goodwin v Curtis
To qualify for private residence relief from capital gains tax, the taxpayer's occupation of the property must have some degree of permanence, continuity or expectation of continuity.
Facts
Mr Goodwin, who dealt in property, bought a farmhouse and moved into it shortly before selling it, living there for about a month. He had already put the property up for sale before moving in. He claimed private residence relief on the gain made on the sale, on the basis that the farmhouse had been his only or main residence during the period of his ownership. The General Commissioners held that he had not occupied the property as his residence, because his occupation lacked the quality of permanence required.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Goodwin's appeal. Millett LJ said that the commissioners had been entitled to find that Mr Goodwin's occupation of the property did not have the degree of permanence, continuity or expectation of continuity required to make it his residence. Temporary occupation of a property, such as occupation while looking for somewhere else to live or pending a sale, did not make it a residence, and the question of residence was one of fact and degree for the commissioners. The length of occupation was not decisive, but Mr Goodwin had never intended to make the farmhouse his home.
Related cases on capital gains, inheritance tax and property taxes
- Ingram v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2000] 1 AC 293
- Marren v Ingles [1980] 1 WLR 983
- Pitt v Holt [2013] UKSC 26, [2013] 2 AC 108
- Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Lockyer [2013] UKUT 50 (TCC)
Studying tax law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
