Crocker and Edwards v HMRC TC/2024/04639/V
This was a case where the Tribunal made their decision immediately following the parties submissions and the parties agreed for a short decision to be published on the basis that the decision was based on the specific facts of this appeal.
Background
The appeal was in relation to the applicability of MDR to a property which consisted of a main dwelling and a detached self-contained annex. The property also consisted of stables and land towards the rear of the property and at completion there was a small outdoor pool located in between the annex and the stables.
Issues
The main issues raised by HMRC were in relation to privacy and they made the following arguments:
- The location of the annex in the grounds of the property affected the privacy of both dwellings.
- The access route to the annex affected the privacy of the main dwelling.
- The fact that the annex overlooked the stables affected the privacy of the annex and the stables.
- The location of the pool affected the privacy of both dwellings but in HMRC’s view the pool belonged to the main dwelling meaning that the annex’s privacy was affected when the pool was in use.
HMRC also tried to argue that the lack of a cooker at the date of purchase was highly relevant despite the Taxpayer’s evidence that there was a cooker switch allowing a cooker to be fitted by them using the existing infrastructure.
Decision
The Tribunal rejected HMRC’s arguments in relation to privacy and stated that if the annex were to be separately occupied the pool would go with the annex thus negating any privacy concerns and it was their view that the lack of the pool would not affect the main dwelling. The Tribunal was also of the view that the access to the annex from the front driveway and along the side of the main dwelling was not a reason to refuse MDR and made the very valid point that many separate dwellings share driveways.
As regards the cooker the Tribunal accepted the Taxpayer’s evidence that there was a cooker switch but went further to state that a cooker was not a necessity given that there are many other methods for cooking food. This is a point HMRC regularly refuse to accept despite today’s society moving more towards modern appliances like air fryers to cook their food.
The fact the Tribunal made their decision at the Hearing is indicative of the weakness of HMRC’s arguments and a clear indication of the approach now being taken by the Tribunal in relation to MDR cases.
If you have received a compliance check from HMRC contact Relatus today to see how we can help.
