Sajedi: An Unwelcome Ramsay Surprise

Speed read

The FTT's decision in Sajedi finds for the taxpayer on the narrow issue between the parties. But the FTT found itself able to consider issues the parties had agreed, and, applying the Ramsay principle by way of Rossendale, finds that the taxpayers did not meet the relevant conditions – and so determined that the taxpayers had not disposed of a major interest in a residence for the purpose of the SDLT rules. The FTT purports to interpret the verb 'dispose' in a way which qualifies the nature of what is being disposed as being too insignificant to have a real-world effect. This seems difficult to follow as a matter of pure statutory interpretation.

Last month, I wrote, with Victoria Hine, about the Supreme Court invoking the principle in WT Ramsay Ltd v IRC [1982] AC 300 (Ramsay) without it having been argued between the parties ('RBC: from the island of literal interpretation to the continental shelf', Tax Journal, 7 March 2025). We expressed some