Vereley Homes Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 12 May 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 695 (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
Vereley Homes Ltd purchased two adjoining titles and HMRC issued a closure notice treating the acquisition as wholly residential for SDLT, increasing the tax due. The Tribunal found that the smaller parcel (Plot 2) formed part of the garden/grounds of the house on Plot 1 at the time of acquisition, so the higher residential SDLT treatment applied. The appellant's appeal was dismissed and the closure notice upheld.
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 Tribunal applied the statutory test in section 116(1)(b) and paragraph 18(3) of Schedule 4ZA and concluded that physical features (a deliberate gap in the fence, a concrete step addressing a height difference), historical use and marketing showing integration can demonstrate that formerly separate land forms part of a dwelling’s garden or grounds for SDLT purposes; lack of current obvious access or partial separation does not preclude that conclusion where evidence shows prior/intended integration and reasonable ease of reinstating access.
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 Tribunal observed that late site visits limited the utility of some witness evidence and that the presence of fencing or partial separation can nonetheless be consistent with the land serving a passive garden function and therefore still constituting grounds.
Warning
- The chunk contains extensive repetition of material (duplicated passages), which may cause apparent redundancy in the record. Notes include extensive repetition and may be redundant in places; otherwise no obvious material omissions identified.