Owen v Elliott (Inspector of Taxes)
[1990] STC 469(Judgment by: Parker LJ)
Owen
vElliott (Inspector of Taxes)
Judges:
Fox LJ
Parker LJLeggatt LJ
Legislative References:
Finance Act 1980 - s 80(1)
Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 - s 101; s 102
Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 - s 101
Finance Act 1980 - s 80
Judgment date: 27 April 1990
Judgment by:
Parker LJ
I agree. I add a few words only because we are differing from the learned judge. It is quite plain from his judgment that he was encouraged and persuaded to speculate on the purpose of the section by the silver-tongued advocacy of counsel for the Crown. I am not so persuaded. It seems to me to be just as likely that the purpose behind this section was to encourage home owners to make surplus accommodation available on a bed and breakfast basis as it was that they should provide homes within their own homes for other people.
He had one further argument which was stressed, which was this, that it depended on what was on offer. As to that argument, if one supposes that the Gleneagles hotel had not been so described, but was simply a large house with a street number, and that outside it there was hung up a sign saying 'Residential accommodation available', and if one supposes further that somebody went in from the street and was offered that which is described in the special case, it is to my mind unthinkable that he could turn round and say, 'You are not offering me residential accommodation'. Therefore, if that argument is taken at its face value, one comes inevitably to the conclusion that the lettings here must be within the words, as indeed is accepted, unless the meaning can be displaced by some compelling context. The context of ss 101 and 102 is the only context which is relied on, though the words used in those sections plainly recognise that there may be residences other than residences which are properly within the description of homes, and therefore it appears to me that the context, if it does anything, militates against the Crown's construction rather than supports it.
For those additional reasons I would also allow the appeal.