MARK CAMPBELL v THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS [2023] UKUT 00265 (TCC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Thomas Scott,Judge Guy Brannan |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Published date | 03 November 2023 |
Neutral Citation: [2023] UKUT 00265 (TCC) Case Number: UT/2022/000108
UPPER TRIBUNAL
(Tax and Chancery Chamber) Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building,
Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL
CAPITAL GAINS TAX AND INCOME TAX – Appellant bought and sold four residential
properties – whether a trade – whether the capital gains were within the exemption for job-
related accommodation – whether discovery assessments were validly issued – penalties for
deliberate behaviour – appeal allowed in part
Heard on: 30 June 2023
Judgment date: 03 November 2023
Before
JUDGE THOMAS SCOTT
JUDGE GUY BRANNAN
Between
MARK CAMPBELL Appellant
and
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents
Representation:
For the Appellant: Keith Gordon and Siobhan Duncan, instructed pro bono via Advocate
For the Respondents: Laura Inglis, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to His
Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
1
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
1. This appeal relates to the tax liability of Mr Campbell in respect of four residential
properties which he sold between 2010 and 2016. The substantive issue is whether he was
liable to capital gains tax (“CGT”) on the disposals, or to income tax, or to neither. There are
also procedural issues as to the validity of the tax assessments issued by HMRC, and a
challenge to the quantum of the penalties imposed by HMRC.
2. Mr Campbell appeals against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (the “FTT”) released
on 8 February 2022 (the “Decision”), and HMRC cross-appeal against one aspect of the
Decision.
3. We thank all counsel for their detailed submissions, and are grateful to Mr Gordon and
Ms Duncan for representing Mr Campbell pro bono, enabling important issues to be fully
argued.
4. One sensitive aspect of this case relates to the medical condition of Mr Campbell’s father.
We have, as requested, avoided giving details of his condition, and refer to him below simply
as “Mr Campbell’s father”.
BACKGROUND
5. On 27 August 2017, HMRC wrote to Mr Campbell asking him to submit a self-
assessment return for the tax year 2015-16. HMRC said that they were in receipt of information
that he had disposed of a property which was not his main residence, being 8 Wigshaw Lane.
6. Mr Campbell responded that that the property was not liable to CGT as it fell within the
exemption for job-related accommodation (discussed below). He delivered a tax return as
requested.
7. On 19 December 2017, HMRC wrote to Mr Campbell disputing that the exemption was
available. HMRC became aware that Mr Campbell had bought and sold four properties
between 2010 and 2015, as follows:
(1) 10 Woodhouse Close, purchased on 17 December 2010 for £80,000 and sold on
24 April 2012 for £116,000.
(2) 28 Bramhill Close, purchased on 12 October 2012 for £95,000 and sold on 22
January 2015 for £125,000.
(3) 2 Bramhill Close, purchased on 8 February 2013 for £100,000 and sold on 20 June
2014 for £147,000.
(4) 8 Wigshaw Lane, purchased on 17 June 2015 for £95,000 and sold on 31 March
2016 for £245,000.
8. HMRC requested further information and documents from Mr Campbell concerning
these transactions. Mr Campbell’s agents wrote supplying certain information, and stating that
the only chargeable gain related to 2 Bramshill Close.
9. On 24 January 2018, HMRC issued an information notice requiring further information,
and opened an inquiry into his 2015-16 tax return.
10. In due course, HMRC issued assessments and a closure notice, assessing Mr Campbell
to income tax or, in the alternative, CGT. They also issued penalties to him for deliberate failure
to notify his liability to tax.
To continue reading
Request your trial