In Mrs EM Ramsay v HMRC (TC01871 – 22 March) a married woman (R) had acquired a large house in Belfast which was divided into flats and let to tenants. In 2004 she transferred the house to a company. She claimed relief under TCGA 1992 s 162. Following an enquiry HMRC issued a ruling that no relief was due on the grounds that the property was an investment and was not a business. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed R’s appeal. Judge Huddleston held that ‘where an individual asserts that a business arises there is a presumption that unless proof of sufficient activity is established that it is not a business. That onus of proof rests on the appellant.’ On the evidence R’s activities were ‘normal and incidental to the owning of an investment property’ and did not constitute a business.
Why...
