## Facts

- The case concerned an individual, Mr. Goodwin, who sold a property soon after purchasing it and claimed Principal Private Residence (PPR) relief from Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on the basis it was intended as his main home.
- Mr. Goodwin’s actual use of the property was limited, and he maintained links elsewhere.
- The key dispute was whether Mr. Goodwin’s stated intention to make the property his residence satisfied the permanence requirement essential for PPR relief.
- Evidence showed that Mr. Goodwin’s physical occupation and treatment of the property did not support a consistent intention to live there as a main home.

## Issues

1. Whether the intention to treat a property as a main home, without corresponding physical use and supporting actions, meets the requirement for Principal Private Residence relief under CGT law.
2. Whether brief periods of occupation or temporary absences can satisfy the permanence test for establishing a main residence.

## Decision

- The High Court held that a mere intention or plan to make a property a main residence is insufficient; permanent occupation and concrete actions are required.
- The court ruled that physical use of the property, continued links, and objective evidence must support a PPR relief claim.
- Temporary or brief occupation, particularly during relocations or if living elsewhere for extended periods, does not qualify a property as a principal private residence for CGT relief.
- Each case must be assessed on its facts, focusing on actual usage and living patterns rather than stated intentions alone.

## Legal Principles

- The statutory term "residence" requires both intention to reside and substantive use consistent with main home status.
- Objective actions—such as registering with local services, changing official documents, and transferring possessions—are key indicators of residence.
- Short absences do not necessarily defeat a claim, but longer or indefinite breaks are likely to undermine the required permanence.
- The burden of proof of residence falls on the taxpayer, and thorough documentation of intentions and actions is critical.

## Conclusion

The High Court in Goodwin v Curtis clarified that Principal Private Residence relief for CGT depends on demonstrable, permanent occupation, not solely on intention or brief use. The decision established that both the taxpayer’s actions and continuity of occupation must align with claims of main residence, shaping how similar claims are evaluated in subsequent cases.

Goodwin v Curtis [1996] STC 1146 (Ch)