In Assem Allam vs. HMRC  UKUT 0291, the Upper Tribunal found that previous HMRC guidance using a simple 80/20 test of trading versus non-trading activity is not always going to produce the correct answer when deciding if the relief is available. HMRC guidance has not completely done away with the 20% test, but less emphasis is now placed on it.
In any dispute with HMRC, it is important to remember that a decision of the Upper Tribunal makes the law, but HMRC guidance does not have the force of law.
Upper Tribunal approach
The Upper Tribunal concluded that the legislation does not provide for a strict numeric test. The test of whether non-trading activities are substantial is a holistic one not confined to physical human activity, but requires an overall consideration of what it is that the company does.
Other factors than those listed in HMRC’s guidance can also be relevant.
HMRC’s revised guidance now states that the 20% test is only likely to be relevant when considering the level of non-trading income and the value of a company’s non-trading assets. If neither exceed 20%, HMRC will generally accept that the relief is available without further enquiry.
- Also relevant is the proportion of expenses spent on non-trading activities, as well as the amount of time and resources incurred.
- The relevant factors should be considered over a company’s history, not just at one point in time; particularly if trade is seasonal.
Having investment property may therefore preclude claiming BADR. However, there is a bit more leeway when it comes to a large cash balance because it may be argued out of the equation as being required for trading purposes.
HMRC’s guidance on the meaning of ‘substantial’ can be found here within their capital gains manual.