Kwasi Adomako Bonsu & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 26 February 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 158 (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 a right to use a communal garden granted with a lease (the Easement) was chargeable as residential land for SDLT purposes or formed part of a mixed/non‑residential transaction. The Tribunal held the Easement was a proprietary easement appurtenant to the leasehold of Apartment 140, that the leasehold was the single main subject‑matter of the transaction, and that section 55(1B) applied so the relevant land was entirely residential (Table A); alternatively the Easement qualified as residential under s.116(1)(c). The appellants' challenge was dismissed and the higher‑rates SDLT assessment was 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
Where a proprietary right over land is granted within and transfers with a lease, the leasehold interest can be the single main subject‑matter of the transaction and appurtenant rights are treated as part of that subject‑matter (pursuant to s.43(6)); accordingly section 55(1B) can operate to treat the relevant land as entirely residential for SDLT, and an easement that subsists for the benefit of a residential building can itself qualify as residential property under s.116(1)(c).
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 the wording of s.43(6) (the use of "the" and "it") supports construing a transaction as having a single main subject‑matter where appropriate, and noted that absent evidence of any apportionable value for appurtenant rights a tribunal could not make findings about separate consideration attributable to such rights.