Goodwin v Curtis [1996] STC 1146 (Ch)

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal