Campbell Connolly & Co Ltd v Barnett

This case concerns roll-over relief

CA 1993, 66 TC 380; [1994] STC 50

The taxpayer purchased a building. It was originally intended that it would be vacant but the property was acquired subject to a sub-lease.

Nine months later, the taxpayer acquired the sub-lease and assumed vacant possession of the property for use in its trade.

The company claimed to roll-over an earlier capital gain against the acquisition on the grounds that it had taken possession of the property as soon as possible.

It was held that roll-over relief was not available on the grounds that the building was not used for the purposes of the trade straight away.