Language of FA 2003, s 116 was unambiguous

The taxpayers each bought a house with an area of land. The issue was whether all of the land sold together with the house was or formed ‘part of the garden or grounds of’ the house. The taxpayers said not all the land formed part of the property but that it should be treated as mixed use. The First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal dismissed the taxpayers’ appeal.

The issue was the interpretation of FA 2003 s 116. The taxpayers said land could be part of the garden or grounds of the house only if it is ‘needed for the reasonable enjoyment’ of the house bearing in mind its size and nature. Their counsel relied on guidance to the bill which became FA 2003 in support of the case.

The Court of Appeal said in relation to the role of external materials its task had been made...