Skip to content
Solved
SearchBrowse
Sign in

Contents

Official guidance
Capital Gains Manual

CG64350P · Reliefs: private residence relief: identification of garden or grounds

  • CG64350 · Private residence relief: garden and grounds: introduction
  • CG64355 · Private residence relief: garden and grounds: the role of the Valuation Office
  • CG64360 · Private residence relief: garden and grounds: definitions
  • CG64367 · Private residence relief: garden and grounds: land physically separated
  • CG64377 · Private residence relief: garden and grounds: date of sale test: Varty v Lynes
  • CG64381 · Private residence relief: garden and grounds: Varty v Lynes: not resident at date of disposal
  • CG64385 · Private residence relief: garden and grounds: land disposed between contract and conveyance
  • CG64388 · Private residence relief: garden and grounds: ownership
  • CG64390 · Private residence relief: garden and grounds: ownership: differing interests in dwelling-house and land
  • CG64391 · Private residence relief: garden and grounds: caravans and boats
  1. Reliefs: private residence relief: identification of garden or grounds: contents
  2. Private residence relief: garden and grounds: Varty v Lynes: not resident at date of disposal

CG64381 | Private residence relief: garden and grounds: Varty v Lynes: not resident at date of disposal

From HM Revenue & Customs · Capital Gains Manual

Some uncertainty was caused by an observation by Brightman J in the case of Varty v Lynes (51TC419),

“On the construction advanced by the Crown it must follow, I am disposed to think, that if the taxpayer goes out of occupation of the dwelling-house a month before he sells it, the exemption will be lost in respect of the garden.”

This statement may be interpreted incorrectly as meaning that if the owner of a dwelling-house is not physically present in it at the date of sale, there can be no relief on a disposal of the garden and grounds. However, it is important to place this statement in context. It formed no part of the Judge’s reasoning in deciding the case and that particular point was not argued before him. Indeed he went on to say,

“that, however, is merely my impression, and I do not intend so to decide because it is not a matter for decision before me.”

It is our view that relief would not be lost in these circumstances.

PreviousNext
PrivacyTerms