Mark White & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 29 September 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 866 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This appeal concerned whether fields surrounding Horton Hall formed part of the dwelling's "grounds" for SDLT purposes on 23 August 2013. The tribunal found the fields did not have a self‑standing or commercial function at the effective date and were functionally an appendage to Horton Hall, so they qualified as residential. The appeal against HMRC 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: medium
The tribunal applied a holistic, fact‑sensitive test: whether adjoining land had a self‑standing or commercial function at the effective date. No single factor is determinative; a range of relevant factors must be weighed and one strong factor can outweigh several weaker contrary indicators. The absence of contemporaneous documentary or legal arrangements evidencing a separate use supports finding the land formed part of the residential grounds.
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 observed that public rights of way, gates or tractor access, suitability for agricultural use, and historical or occasional agricultural use do not by themselves amount to a self‑standing commercial function that prevents land being residential grounds. It also noted that informal arrangements entered into after the purchase are not relevant to characterising the land at the effective date.
Warning
The chunk contains duplicated and repetitive passages of the judgment. Notes include duplicated and repetitive material and rely on post‑transaction evidence; they may be noisy and not fully comprehensive.