Occupation by employees of the owner

When the disposal of a subsidiary dwelling-house is in issue it is unlikely to qualify for PRR (assuming that it can pass the now re-stated ‘entity’ test based on the curtilage concept) except in so far as it is occupied by the taxpayer's domestic employees. This is a consequence of the requirement that it is the residence of the taxpayer whose occupation has to be served. Thus, there was no doubt in Lewis (HMIT) v Lady Rook [1990] BTC 9 that the gardener's tenure of the cottage was essential to the taxpayer's well-being, and in the other cases there was no serious attempt to dispute that the employees needed to live where they did to perform their duties.

Need help? Get subscribed!

To subscribe to this content, simply call 0800 231 5199

We can create a package that’s catered to your individual needs.

Or book a demo to see this product in action.