Direct tax treatment of property ownership

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

This subtopic covers the direct tax treatment (ie corporation tax, income tax and capital gains tax treatment) of owning freehold or leasehold property, primarily in the UK. There are a number of relevant considerations, including:

  1. •

    whether the taxpayer is trading (ie dealing), or investing, in property

  2. •

    the nature of the taxpayer (eg an individual, company or unit trust)

  3. •

    the principles of computing income tax, corporation tax or capital gains tax (as appropriate) on rental income, and the proceeds of sale, from property

  4. •

    the extent to which non-UK residents owning UK property are subject to direct taxation in the UK, and

  5. •

    the application of the UK's anti-avoidance measures to property owners

Trading or investing in property

Whether a taxpayer is investing or trading (ie dealing) in property is key to determining how they are taxed. This distinction is relevant in many circumstances, eg it will be significant for the owner of a property who is considering selling it, as well as for the purchaser of shares in a company that owns a property asset (to assess the company's potential future tax liabilities).

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Tax News

Tax weekly highlights—19 March 2026

This week's edition of Tax weekly highlights includes: (1) the enactment of Finance Act 2026 on 18 March 2026, (2) News Analysis on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP that amortisation debits were correctly disallowed by HMRC, (3) News Analysis on the UT’s decision in Putney Power Limited on the issue of whether the appellants had begun to trade by the relevant date for EIS relief purposes, (4) new HMRC guidance on multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax reporting software, and (5) News Analysis on the FTT’s decision in Countrywide Partners Limited to uphold a penalty for failure to comply with a stop notice issued under the promoters of tax avoidance schemes (POTAS) rules.

Upper Tribunal denies EIS relief as trade not commenced (Putney Power and Piston Heating v HMRC)

Tax analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) has held that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (the FTT) made a material error of law in its approach to determining when a trade has ‘begun to be carried on’ by a company for the purposes of qualifying for Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) relief under section 179(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007). The FTT had identified a set of principles by reference to factors which were of relevance in previous cases and applied those ‘legal’ principles to determine that neither Putney Power Limited (‘Putney’) nor Piston Hearing Services Ltd (‘Piston’) had begun to carry on a trade by the relevant date of 4 April 2018. The UT set aside the FTT’s decision on the basis that the FTT had sought to apply a principles-based test which did not exist as a matter of law. The proper approach requires a multi-factorial evaluation of all of the circumstances in the case at hand. The UT re-made the decision but ultimately reached the same conclusion as the FTT, dismissing the appeals of both Putney and Piston and holding that neither company had commenced trading by the relevant date. The decision is significant because it clarifies that there is no strict legal test for when a trade commences: the question remains highly fact sensitive and will be determined by reference to the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Written by Kate Ison (partner at Macfarlanes LLP) and Victoria Braid (associate at macfarlanes LLP).

FTT upholds £1m penalty for stop notice breach (Countrywide Partners Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Countrywide Partners Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) upheld HMRC’s £1m penalty on the taxpayer for breach of a stop notice under section 236A of the Finance Act 2014 (FA 2014), holding that the appellant continued to promote the arrangements by organising and managing them (including issuing payslips and making payments) for existing users.

Court of Appeal upholds UT decision disallowing amortisation debits (Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP and others v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP and others, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants’ appeals against the Upper Tribunal (UT)’s decision that amortisation debits were correctly disallowed by HMRC.

View Tax by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

If the words ‘exclusive of VAT’ are omitted from the definition of annual rent, but there is a VAT clause

If the words ‘exclusive of VAT’ are omitted from the definition of annual rent, but there is a VAT clause stating: ‘Where this lease requires the tenant to pay or provide any amount in respect of a VAT supply to the tenant...that amount will be deemed to be exclusive of VAT...and the tenant shall

Residential service charges—VAT implications

Residential service charges—VAT implicationsThis Practice Note is about the VAT treatment of residential service charges.Service charges payable to landlordsService charges are often payable to the landlord under a lease or licence, in the same way as rent, and in this case they follow the same VAT

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of caseA strike out order can be made either following an application by the parties or on the court's own initiative. This Practice Note deals with the scenario of the order being made following a party's application.Making an application
If the words ‘exclusive of VAT’ are omitted from the definition of annual rent, but there is a VAT clause

If the words ‘exclusive of VAT’ are omitted from the definition of annual rent, but there is a VAT clause

If the words ‘exclusive of VAT’ are omitted from the definition of annual rent, but there is a VAT clause stating: ‘Where this lease requires the tenant to pay or provide any amount in respect of a VAT supply to the tenant...that amount will be deemed to be exclusive of VAT...and the tenant shall

Residential service charges—VAT implications

Residential service charges—VAT implications

Residential service charges—VAT implicationsThis Practice Note is about the VAT treatment of residential service charges.Service charges payable to landlordsService charges are often payable to the landlord under a lease or licence, in the same way as rent, and in this case they follow the same VAT

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of caseA strike out order can be made either following an application by the parties or on the court's own initiative. This Practice Note deals with the scenario of the order being made following a party's application.Making an application