The fact that she saw the separation as being temporary and that they had continued on good terms. Amongst some of her actions that were questioned was that not only did she still collect her private post from her previous marital home, she regularly visited the house and did not close her bank account. She also didn’t change the utility bills into her name for either of the buy-to-let properties that she lived in.

The tribunal ruled on behalf of the HMRC, on a point of law, that the landlord’s main residence was in fact still her marital home.

Tax law says a married couple can only have one main home for PRR relief, and as the tribunal felt moving to the buy to lets was a temporary arrangement, she could not claim the CGT relief on the sale of the property.

Reporting the case, tax firm Gabelle said: “This case is one of a series of recent decisions involving PPR which indicate that HMRC are now taking a much tougher line, and are quite prepared to challenge what they perceive as contentious claims.

“It underlines the importance placed on practitioners when discussing potential claims with clients and, particularly, the need to gather all the facts regarding the quality, length, nature and circumstances surrounding the occupation of a property to establish its status as a residence or main residence. This is even more crucial in situations where a property has been used as a residence for only a short period.

“In this case, perhaps if she had not put the property on the market while she lived there and had taken steps to show this was now her permanent home by notifying the change of address, the claim might have had more chance of success.”