UK Property Tax Case Laws: Grouped by the Tax Question They Decide

When property tax decisions depend on case-law, the operative question is which case GROUNDS the position you are taking. Statute sets the framework. Case-law tells the landlord, and HMRC, what the words actually mean in tribunal practice. The badges-of-trade cluster tells the landlord what "trading" looks like even though the statute does not enumerate. The SDLT mixed-use trilogy tells the landlord what "non-residential character" looks like in practice. Pawson tells the landlord that ordinary BTL letting is INVESTMENT for BPR. Without case-law grounding, the statute is a sentence; landlords act on the case-law interpretation, not the text alone.

This page is decision-grouped, not chronological. The cases are sorted by the tax question each decides. Each row carries the case name, the court level, the year and citation, the operative holding in one sentence, and a one-line statement of what changed in practice. Each cluster forward-links to the substantive deep-dive page where the case is load-bearing.

How to Read the Table

Court hierarchy in order of binding force: UKSC (UK Supreme Court) > CA (Court of Appeal) > UT (Upper Tribunal) > FTT (First-tier Tribunal). Privy Council decisions (PC) and CJEU decisions on retained EU law remain persuasive within their scope. Older cases pre-tribunal-reform sit in the High Court (Chancery Division) and Court of Appeal hierarchy under the citation forms operative at the time.

Citation form. UKSC 33 in [2024] UKSC 33 means the 33rd Supreme Court decision of 2024. UKUT 050 (TCC) in [2013] UKUT 050 (TCC) is the 50th Upper Tribunal decision of 2013, Tax and Chancery Chamber. UKFTT 65 (TC) is the 65th First-tier Tribunal decision, Tax Chamber. Older neutral-citation forms (e.g., [1992] STC 171) reflect law-report citation rather than neutral citation.

The Case-Law Table

Tax question	Case	Court	Year and citation	Operative holding	What changed
SDLT mixed-use rate-line, paddock	Hyman v HMRC	UT (TCC)	[2021] UKUT 0068	Paddock as garden held residential, not mixed-use.	HMRC enquiry approach hardened post-trilogy; mixed-use claims face uphill burden.
SDLT mixed-use rate-line, woodland	Goodfellow v HMRC	FTT	[2019] UKFTT 750 (TC)	Woodland adjacent to garden held residential.	Confirms restrictive reading of "non-residential character" test.
SDLT mixed-use rate-line, commercial-use claim	Faiers v HMRC	FTT	[2023] UKFTT 297 (TC)	Commercial-use claim rejected on non-residential character.	Mixed-use trilogy effectively closed for borderline residential acquisitions.
SDLT uninhabitable property	PN Bewley Ltd v HMRC	FTT	[2019] UKFTT 65 (TC)	Derelict uninhabitable bungalow non-residential for SDLT.	Opened narrow uninhabitability route; HMRC scrutiny since has narrowed scope.
BPR investment-vs-trade for BTL	Pawson v HMRC	UT (TCC)	[2013] UKUT 050	Ordinary BTL letting is INVESTMENT for BPR; no BPR available.	Essentially closed the BPR route for ordinary BTL; only the genuine-trade subset qualifies.
Badges of trade, canonical nine	Marson v Morton	Ch D	[1986] 1 WLR 1343	Sets out the nine badges of trade.	Operative canonical statement of trading-vs-investment indicators.
Badges of trade, single transaction	Iswera v IRC	PC	[1965] 1 WLR 663	Single transaction can be trading if motive and intent qualify.	Disposed of the "must be repeated" misframing.
Badges of trade, frequency	Salt v Chamberlain	Ch D	[1979] STC 750	Frequency alone not determinative; intent and manner of transaction central.	Frequency is a badge, not a gate.
Badges of trade, single flip	Page v Lowther	Ch D	[1983] STC 799	Single property flip held trading on facts.	Single transaction can establish trade where badges align.
Badges of trade, repeated transactions	Pickford v Quirke	Ch D	(1927) 13 TC 251	Repeated transactions establish trade.	Foundational; quoted alongside Marson v Morton in most badges analyses.
PPR garden and grounds	Lewis v Lady Rook	CA	[1992] STC 171	Permitted area plus necessary-for-enjoyment test for PPR garden.	PPR does not extend to large grounds beyond the limits.
PPR minimum residence	Goodwin v Curtis	CA	[1998] STC 475	Quality of occupation required, not just calendar duration.	Stricter PPR minimum-residence assessment.
PPR off-plan completion	Higgins v HMRC	CA	[2019] EWCA Civ 1860	Period of ownership equals period of BENEFICIAL ownership.	PPR clock starts on beneficial completion; corrected HMRC's earlier position.
Salaried-member rules for LLP	BlueCrest Capital Management v HMRC	UKSC	[2024] UKSC 33	Condition B "significant influence" can be over a PART of LLP affairs.	Narrowed FTT/UT safe-harbour reading; matrix-silo'd roles may not qualify.
Reasonable excuse for penalties	Perrin v HMRC	UT (TCC)	[2018] UKUT 156	4-step framework for reasonable excuse.	Operative test framework across HMRC penalty regime.
Late appeal three-stage	Martland v HMRC	UT (TCC)	[2018] UKUT 178	Three-stage framework (length plus reason plus balance).	Operative late-appeal framework.
Discovery "stale" framework	Tooth v HMRC	UKSC	[2021] UKSC 17	Discovery is not stale merely because HMRC took time to act.	Narrowed taxpayer protection; more cases within discovery time-limits.
Employment vs self-employment	Ready Mixed Concrete (SE) Ltd v Min of Pensions	QBD	[1968] 2 QB 497	Three-element test: mutuality, control, integration.	Foundational employment-status test; load-bearing for CIS reclassification risk.
GROB granny annexe	Hood v HMRC	CA	[2018] EWCA Civ 2405	Granny-annexe retention-of-benefit arrangements held GROB.	Narrowed family-home gifting planning routes.
GROB tracing	Buzzoni and Others v HMRC	CA	[2013] EWCA Civ 1684	GROB tracing through corporate or trust arrangements.	"Gift-with-strings-attached" caught even where indirect benefit.
VAT principal supply	Card Protection Plan v Customs and Excise	CJEU	C-349/96, [1999] 2 AC 601	Principal-supply test for single-supply analysis.	Foundational; basis for VAT service-charge follow-supply.
VAT TOGC and property	Robinson Family Ltd v HMRC	FTT	[2012] UKFTT 360 (TC)	TOGC and property in business transfer.	Operative TOGC application to property-business transfers.

SDLT Mixed-Use Rate-Line: The Trilogy and the Bewley Outlier

The SDLT mixed-use claim was, for many years, the route landlords used to pay non-residential SDLT rates on rural acquisitions with paddock, woodland, or ancillary commercial-use features. The trilogy of Hyman (UT 2021), Goodfellow (FTT 2019), and Faiers (FTT 2023) closed the most common claim shapes. The Upper Tribunal in Hyman held that a paddock attached to a residential property is part of the garden or grounds and is residential in character; Goodfellow applied the same logic to woodland adjacent to garden; Faiers rejected a commercial-use claim on the non-residential character test.

HMRC's enquiry approach hardened after the trilogy. Borderline mixed-use claims on residential acquisitions face an uphill evidentiary burden; the practical operative position is that the mixed-use route is closed for paddock-as-garden, woodland-adjacent-to-garden, and ancillary-commercial-use claims.

PN Bewley Ltd (FTT 2019) sits separately. The Bewley test is for genuinely uninhabitable derelict property, where the structural defects mean the property is incapable of being used as a dwelling at the date of acquisition. The route is narrow; HMRC scrutiny since has narrowed the practical scope further. A property requiring renovation but capable of being lived in does not qualify.

BPR Investment Line: Pawson and the Activity-Not-Entity Rule

Pawson v HMRC (UT 2013) is the operative authority on the investment-vs-trade line for BPR purposes on landlord property businesses. The Upper Tribunal held that ordinary BTL letting is INVESTMENT activity for BPR, even where the landlord is active in management. BPR (s.105 IHTA 1984) requires the business to be wholly or mainly trading; ordinary BTL letting is not, and therefore no BPR is available.

The Pawson line has been reinforced by subsequent FTT decisions. The entity wrapper does not change the analysis: an LLP, a partnership, a corporate landlord holding ordinary BTL property are all subject to the same investment-vs-trade test on the underlying activity. The qualifying lines for BPR are the genuine-trade subsets: FHL-with-substantial-services and property-development-trade, both requiring fact-pattern-specific evidence.

Badges of Trade: The Five-Case Cluster

The trading-vs-investment line on property disposals is grounded in the badges-of-trade cluster. Marson v Morton sets out the canonical nine badges (subject matter; length of ownership; frequency; supplementary work; circumstances of realisation; motive; method of acquisition; finance; accounting treatment). Iswera v IRC (PC 1965) disposes of the "must be repeated" misframing: a single transaction can be trading. Salt v Chamberlain (1979) holds that frequency alone is not determinative. Page v Lowther (1983) confirms that a single property flip can establish trade where the other badges align. Pickford v Quirke (1927) is foundational on repeated transactions establishing trade.

The cluster sits alongside the statutory regime in ITA 2007 Part 9A and CTA 2010 Part 8ZB (the transactions-in-UK-land regime introduced by FA 2016). The statutory regime catches the same trading patterns; the case-law shapes border-case classification where the statutory test is fact-pattern dependent.

PPR Family-Home Boundaries: Lewis, Goodwin, Higgins

Three Court of Appeal authorities ground the PPR (private residence relief) analysis under TCGA 1992 s.222.

Lewis v Lady Rook (CA 1992) sets the permitted-area-and-necessary-for-enjoyment test for the PPR garden and grounds. PPR does not extend to large grounds beyond the permitted area unless the additional land is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the dwelling-house.

Goodwin v Curtis (CA 1998) holds that PPR minimum-residence requires quality of occupation, not just calendar duration. Brief actual occupation does not establish PPR; the landlord-owner must demonstrate use as a residence in substance.

Higgins v HMRC (CA 2019) is the operative authority on PPR period-of-ownership for off-plan and pre-completion purchases. The period of ownership equals the period of BENEFICIAL ownership. For an off-plan flat purchased pre-construction, the PPR clock starts when beneficial ownership of the actual flat begins (typically on practical completion), not on the exchange date. Higgins corrected HMRC's earlier operative position.

Salaried-Member Rules and BlueCrest 2024

BlueCrest Capital Management v HMRC [2024] UKSC 33 is the most recent operative development in the salaried-member regime at ITA 2007 ss.863A to 863G. The Supreme Court narrowed Condition B "significant influence over the affairs of the partnership". Pre-BlueCrest, the FTT and UT had read Condition B to require whole-LLP influence. The Supreme Court held that influence over a significant PART of the LLP's affairs can be enough.

Practical operative implication: matrix-silo'd member roles (a senior partner managing only one office, one client portfolio, or one practice area) may not clear Condition B safe harbour post-BlueCrest. LLPs reviewing member structures must re-test against the narrowed Condition B reading. Capital contribution at 25% or more of expected disguised salary (Condition C safe harbour) is the cleaner practical route.

Reasonable Excuse and Late Appeals: Perrin and Martland

The penalty-side analysis runs through two UT decisions of 2018.

Perrin v HMRC [2018] UKUT 156 (TCC) sets the four-step reasonable-excuse framework: identify the relevant facts; identify the relevant law; ask whether what the taxpayer did satisfied the reasonable-excuse test; consider whether the taxpayer remedied the failure without unreasonable delay. The Perrin framework is the operative test across HMRC penalty regimes.

Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC) sets the three-stage framework for late appeals: length of delay; reason for delay; balance of all relevant factors. The Martland framework applies to appeals filed outside the statutory window.

Discovery: Tooth and the Narrowed "Stale" Framework

Tooth v HMRC [2021] UKSC 17. The Supreme Court narrowed the taxpayer-side "stale" discovery framework. Discovery is not stale merely because HMRC took time to act on information already available. The discovery assessment time limits at TMA s.34 (ordinary 4-year), s.36 (carelessness 6-year), and s.36 (deliberate 20-year) still apply; the question Tooth addressed was whether discovery within those windows could be defeated by an earlier window of HMRC awareness. Post-Tooth, the answer is generally no.

Practical operative implication: taxpayer protection on stale discovery is narrower than pre-Tooth understanding. Discovery assessments within the statutory time-limit windows are harder to defeat on the "should-have-acted-sooner" argument.

GROB and the Family-Home Arrangements: Hood and Buzzoni

Two Court of Appeal authorities ground the gift-with-reservation-of-benefit (GROB) analysis under Finance Act 1986 s.102. Hood v HMRC (CA 2018) held that granny-annexe-style retention-of-benefit arrangements were GROB; the gift was not a clean transfer because the donor retained a benefit (continued occupation of the annexe). Buzzoni v HMRC (CA 2013) on GROB tracing rules: a gift-with-strings-attached is caught even where the indirect benefit runs through corporate or trust arrangements.

Practical operative implication: family-home gifting planning routes that rely on retaining occupation or indirect benefit are narrow. The Hood and Buzzoni line is operative; planning that does not engage these authorities does not work.

The CIS Cross-Reference: Ready Mixed Concrete and Employment Status

Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497 is the foundational employment-vs-self-employment three-element test: mutuality of obligation; control; integration or consistency with employment. The case is older than the modern tribunal architecture but remains the operative authority.

For CIS purposes, the cross-reference matters because CIS-registered status does NOT establish self-employment for employment-status purposes. A long-running CIS-registered subcontractor on a single development site, integrated into the contractor's workflow, can be reclassified as an employee under Ready Mixed Concrete. The contractor then faces PAYE plus NIC liability on historic payments. The CIS-registration is administrative; the employment status sits independently on the working pattern.

VAT: Card Protection Plan and Robinson Family Ltd

Two cases ground the VAT cluster for property work. Card Protection Plan v Customs and Excise (CJEU C-349/96) is the principal-supply test for single-supply analysis. The case is foundational for the VAT service-charge analysis (service charge follows the principal supply of rent); the principal-supply doctrine extends across the VAT-on-property cluster.

Robinson Family Ltd v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 360 (TC) is the operative FTT-level application of TOGC (transfer of going concern) treatment to property business transfers. The case is one of several FTT decisions on the application of TOGC to mixed property-business asset transfers.

Methodology: Why Certain Cases Are NOT in the Table

The table is curated against a clear selection rule:

• In scope: landlord-relevant tax cases with current operative force in UK courts and tribunals (FTT, UT, CA, SC, UKSC, PC where applicable, CJEU where bound by retained EU law for the relevant tax year).
• Out of scope: company-law cases on directors' duties (not landlord tax). Pure trust-law cases without IHT or CGT consequence. OECD model treaty cases without UK DTA application. Superseded cases (replaced by statute or higher-court ruling). Pre-tax-related case-law treated as tax authority where the underlying analysis is non-tax (e.g., the property-law analysis underlying Lewis v Lady Rook is incidental to the s.222 PPR analysis).
• Curation rather than exhaustion: niche fact-patterns may need cases not on this list. The list is the practitioner-relevance shortlist, not a directory.

The page is monitored against the operative-authority watch on each cluster. New UT-level and CA-level decisions affecting one of the operative authorities trigger an update. Post-2025 case-law to watch: follow-on BlueCrest FTT/UT decisions; follow-on SDLT mixed-use cases at UT or CA level; follow-on Pawson-line BPR decisions; follow-on Higgins-line PPR completion-date cases.

Where to Read Next

For the SDLT mixed-use cluster in depth, see the SDLT pages on the residential-vs-non-residential classification line. For the BPR investment line, see the IHT cluster on Pawson and the operative BPR-for-property analysis. For badges of trade, see the trading-vs-investment cluster pages. For PPR family-home boundaries, see the CGT residential cluster. For the salaried-member regime including BlueCrest 2024, see the LLP cluster pages. For penalties and late appeals, see the HMRC compliance cluster. For discovery framework post-Tooth, see the discovery and enquiry cluster. For GROB and family-home arrangements, see the IHT planning cluster.