MR RAYMOND OATES MRS DOREEN OATES v HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Decision date: 16 September 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 409 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: medium
This appeal concerned how to apportion a single sale price of £725,000 between a farmhouse (dwelling) and adjoining commercial land for s.222 TCGA 1992 purposes. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' untested expert report, found the respondent's valuation method flawed in parts, and after applying existing-use value and marriage‑value reasoning under VOA guidance determined a just and reasonable apportionment of £325,000 to the house and £400,000 to the land. The appeals therefore succeeded and no costs order was made under the simplified procedure.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
Where a single sale comprises distinct parts, apportionment should reflect the constituent existing‑use market values of those parts; if those values do not sum to the whole, any marriage value should be allocated by an appropriate formula so as to reach a just and reasonable apportionment rather than by simple area‑based deduction. Area apportionment is only appropriate where value is evenly distributed.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
Comments in the judgment indicate a ransom value should not be attributed where a plot does not restrict access and the site is sold as a whole, and that family sentiment or unsubstantiated emotional value are not proper bases for apportionment.