Anne-Marie Hurst v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 19 June 2024

Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 540 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: low

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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: low

This appeal concerned whether Sortridge Manor was "used as a hotel or inn or similar establishment" (HISE) on the effective date (12 August 2021) for SDLT purposes, and alternatively whether a meadow formed part of the dwelling's grounds or was commercial agricultural land. After a multifactorial factual assessment the tribunal found the previous owners had operated the manor as an HISE (by the finest of margins) and that the meadow use was a barter, not commercial. The appellant's non-residential SDLT self-assessment (Table B) was upheld and the appeal allowed.

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 a multifactorial, objective test to s.116(3)(f), asking whether there was a commercial provision of sleeping accommodation accompanied by additional amenities or services beyond passive letting; there is no single fixed threshold (such as a >50% usage or business-rates registration) and the question depends on the overall facts and context (including limitations such as Covid).

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 noted that HMRC VAT guidance and VAT case law can be a useful starting point for identifying relevant factors, but cautioned the taxes and statutory purposes differ so the tests are not identical; it also observed that tribunals frequently must rely on circumstantial evidence (e.g. online listings and reviews) when previous owners are not called.