G Goldsmith Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 18 October 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 927 (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 SDLT consequences of a purchase contract assigned by Mr Gia Goldsmith to his company after structural works began. The Tribunal held the company entitled to Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) and its SDLT after relief was correct, but Mr Goldsmith did not substantially perform the contract for s.44 purposes because he never took possession; however paragraph 5 of Schedule 2A treated him as the purchaser of a notional transaction and he remained liable because he failed to claim relief in a prescribed return. The discovery assessment against Mr Goldsmith was validly issued.
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
Possession for s.44 requires a degree of freedom to occupy akin to ownership (e.g. holding keys, entitlement to occupy, responsibility for outgoings); lawful limited access under a contractual special condition does not automatically amount to possession. Reliefs under Schedule 2A paragraph 15 and MDR must be claimed in a land transaction return or by amendment to such a return; failure to make the statutory claim prevents relief even if the substantive facts would otherwise qualify.
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 a buyer's entry that was initially lawful does not automatically become ineffective if later rendered unlawful—the character of possession is assessed by reference to its nature at the time of entry. The judgment also noted the potentially harsh effect of Schedule 2A producing double taxation where connected persons transact, while recognising that statutory requirements for relief are strict.