188体育

The concept of 鈥渁 residence鈥� is used in various areas of tax legislation, in particular CGT private residence relief (in relation to which there are many tax cases), which are of relevance to interpreting 鈥渞esidence鈥� in the context of Welsh taxpayer status.

In Sansom v Peay (52TC1) Brightman J summarised the purpose of private residence relief as:

鈥淭o exempt from liability to Capital Gains Tax the proceeds of sale of a persons鈥� home.鈥�

In Frost v Feltham (55TC10), where (in the context of interest relief) the Court was asked to decide which of an individual鈥檚 residences was his main residence, Nourse J stated:

鈥淎 residence is a place where somebody lives.鈥�

These quotations clearly emphasise the point that a residence is where an individual lives 鈥� their 鈥榟ome鈥�.聽 There is, however, no minimum period of occupation that would enable an individual to establish a residence.

This was confirmed by Millet J in Moore v Thompson (61TC15) where he stated:

鈥淚t is clear that the Commissioners were alive to the fact that even occasional and short residence in a place can make that a residence; but the question was one of fact and degree for the Commissioners.鈥�

Every case must be decided upon its own particular facts.

The meaning of the word 鈥榬esidence鈥� was considered further in the case of Goodwin v Curtis (70TC478).

In 1983 Mr Goodwin set up a company to acquire Hazleton Manor Farmhouse.聽 At that time he was buying it with a view to making it a home for himself and his family.聽 On 1 April 1985 Mr Goodwin acquired the farmhouse from the company but prior to the completion of his purchase he had instructed agents to sell the farmhouse.聽 At the time of his acquisition he had separated from his wife and he took up temporary residence in the farmhouse until 3 May 1985 when the farmhouse was sold.聽 Mr Goodwin contended that the farmhouse was his only or main residence.聽

In the High Court, Sir John Vinelott drew heavily on the observations of Lord Denning and Widgery L.J. in Fox v Stirk, Ricketts v Registration Officer for the City of Cambridge [1970] 3 All ER 7, (see page 鈥�) and he also quoted with approval the line taken by Brightman J in Sansom v Peay (52TC1).聽 Sir John said:

鈥淎mongst the factors to be weighed by the Commissioners are the degree of permanence, continuity and the expectation of continuity.On the facts found by the Commissioners in this case鈥�

鈥n my judgement, they were fully entitled to take the view that the farmhouse was used not as a residence but as mere temporary accommodation for a period that the taxpayer hoped would be brief and which in fact lasted some 32 days between completion of the sale to him and the completion of the sale by him.鈥�

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Commissioners and the High Court that Mr Goodwin had not established a residence in the farmhouse; it had merely provided temporary accommodation.聽 Millett L J stated in the Court of Appeal:

鈥淲hat I derive from Viscount Cave鈥檚 speech is that the word 鈥榬eside鈥� is an ordinary word of the English language and is eminently suitable for a lay tribunal such as the General Commissioners to apply.鈥�聽 He went on:

鈥渢hey (the Commissioners) must be taken to have accepted the Revenue鈥檚 submission that the quality of the taxpayer鈥檚 occupation of the farmhouse did not have a sufficient degree of permanence, continuity or expectation of continuity to justify its description as residence.鈥�聽 And later:

_鈥淭emporary occupation at an address does not make a man resident there.The question whether the occupation is sufficient to make him resident is one of fact and degree for the Commissioners to decide.鈥漘He went on to say:

鈥淭he substance of the Commissioners鈥� finding taken as a whole, in my judgement, is that the nature, quality, length and circumstances of the taxpayer鈥檚 occupation of the Farmhouse did not make his occupation qualify as residence.鈥�

Schiemann L J added:

鈥淚 agree with the judgement that has just been delivered.I accept, as did the Commissioners, the Crown鈥檚 contention that in order to qualify for the relief a taxpayer must provide some evidence that his residence in the property showed some degree of permanence, some degree of continuity or some expectation of continuity.鈥�