In Boxmoor Construction v HMRC [2016] UKUT 91 (22 February 2016) the UT found that a building had not been demolished as its front façade had been retained.
The appeal concerned HMRC’s decision that certain supplies by Boxmoor were not zero-rated supplies in the course of the construction of a building designed as a dwelling (VATA 1994 Sch 8 group 5 item 2). Instead HMRC found that they were standard rated on the ground that the house that had originally stood on the site had not been completely demolished to ground level. A small portion of the front façade had been retained (including part of a projecting bay).
The FTT had found that the retention of the façade had been part of an understanding between the architect and the planning authorities about the limits to the degree of demolition which would be...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Boxmoor Construction v HMRC [2016] UKUT 91 (22 February 2016) the UT found that a building had not been demolished as its front façade had been retained.
The appeal concerned HMRC’s decision that certain supplies by Boxmoor were not zero-rated supplies in the course of the construction of a building designed as a dwelling (VATA 1994 Sch 8 group 5 item 2). Instead HMRC found that they were standard rated on the ground that the house that had originally stood on the site had not been completely demolished to ground level. A small portion of the front façade had been retained (including part of a projecting bay).
The FTT had found that the retention of the façade had been part of an understanding between the architect and the planning authorities about the limits to the degree of demolition which would be...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
