Benjamin Cohen v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 30 January 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 90 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether HMRC validly opened an enquiry into an SDLT return and whether Luna Court was a replacement for Mr Cohen’s only or main residence under Condition D. The Tribunal found HMRC’s enquiry was validly opened within time by service at the taxpayer’s last notified address and that Sherrard Road was occupied only temporarily, not as his only or main residence. Consequently Condition D was not satisfied and the higher rate SDLT charge was upheld; the appeal was dismissed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The decision supports that service sent to a taxpayer’s last notified address and delivered there constitutes valid service for opening an enquiry, and that evidence of short-term occupation combined with contemporaneous actions (e.g. prompt reservation/purchase of another property and sale shortly after occupation) can show occupation was temporary and not an only or main residence for Condition D purposes.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment contains statements that it is the taxpayer’s responsibility to notify HMRC of address changes so notices may be properly sent, and that the taxpayer’s intention at the time of purchase and the timing of related transactions are material factors in assessing whether occupation amounts to a main residence.