## Facts

- Mr. Moore claimed principal residence relief (PRR) on gains from the sale of a property.
- HMRC rejected the claim, asserting that the property was not his main home.
- Mr. Moore owned multiple properties and spent varying amounts of time at each.
- The disputed property was a flat located above his business premises.
- Mr. Moore’s stays at the flat were infrequent and for short periods, yet he claimed it was his main residence.
- The tribunal was required to determine whether these stays met the requirements for PRR.

## Issues

1. Whether the property in question qualified as Mr. Moore’s main residence under section 222 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.
2. Whether irregular and limited occupation of a property suffices for PRR.
3. To what extent a taxpayer’s intention or period of ownership impacts eligibility for PRR.

## Decision

- The tribunal found that continuous or exclusive occupation of the property was not required for PRR.
- However, the property must function as a genuine home; actual usage is critical, not just plans or brief occupation.
- Frequency, length, and the manner of use were assessed; Mr. Moore’s stays were too infrequent and minimal to qualify the property as his principal residence.
- The tribunal held that ownership duration and intention alone do not establish residence; actual occupation is determinative.
- Mr. Moore’s claim for PRR was refused.

## Legal Principles

- The definition of “residence” under section 222 TCGA 1992 depends on factual use rather than intentions or the duration of ownership.
- Establishing a property as a main residence for PRR requires evidence of consistent and substantial use as a home.
- The approach aligns with previous authority, such as Goodwin v Curtis [1998] STC 475, confirming actual occupation must be proven.
- Record-keeping of dates, durations, and nature of stays may support PRR claims.

## Conclusion

The First-tier Tribunal confirmed that principal residence relief is determined by the actual use of the property as a main home; intention and duration of ownership are insufficient, with factual evidence of occupation being essential for PRR eligibility.

Moore v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 433 (TC)