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  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.
Want to read more?
This content requires a Croner-i Tax and Accounting subscription.