Image AI generated
Evidence included a note from their bank in May 2010 recording their intention to trade down from the Holland Park house and put it on the market after the anticipated works at Burnsall Street. It found that they had occupied the property as their residence from July 2013 until they moved out around the beginning of February 2015, and that their nomination of Burnsall Street as their main residence entitled them to principal private residence relief for the relevant period.
The judgment stated that the question was whether the intention to trade “existed at the time of the acquisition of the asset”. The tribunal examined contemporary documents, including correspondence with their bank, as well as evidence about their involvement in the design and construction of the Chelsea house. It concluded that the couple’s intention at the time they acquired the property was central to deciding whether the transaction amounted to trading. The tribunal found that the Eyres intended to move into Burnsall Street after refurbishing it and to sell their Holland Park property. The tribunal also considered the couple’s extensive involvement in the design and fitting out of the new property. The tribunal separately considered whether Burnsall Street qualified as the couple’s principal private residence for capital gains tax purposes. The judgment concluded that the appeals should be allowed on both the trading-venture issue and the principal-residence issue. However, the tribunal did not determine the final amount of tax payable, leaving that question for the parties to resolve in light of a separate judgment concerning the treatment of gains on residential property.