In D Lichfield v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 598 (2 August 2017) the FTT found that a specifically drafted occupation condition was a prohibition on separate use for the purpose of VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 note 2 (c).
Mr Lichfield ran a garage with his wife. He was granted planning consent to build ‘a dwelling double garage and associated works for site manager’. The dwelling was constructed in accordance with the planning consent and Mr Lichfield moved in.
The issue was whether a planning condition which restricted occupation was a prohibition on use for the purposes of VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 note 2(c) so that no refund was available under the DIY scheme (VATA 1994 s 35).
The relevant condition read: ‘The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working at the property currently known as St Audries...
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 D Lichfield v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 598 (2 August 2017) the FTT found that a specifically drafted occupation condition was a prohibition on separate use for the purpose of VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 note 2 (c).
Mr Lichfield ran a garage with his wife. He was granted planning consent to build ‘a dwelling double garage and associated works for site manager’. The dwelling was constructed in accordance with the planning consent and Mr Lichfield moved in.
The issue was whether a planning condition which restricted occupation was a prohibition on use for the purposes of VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 note 2(c) so that no refund was available under the DIY scheme (VATA 1994 s 35).
The relevant condition read: ‘The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working at the property currently known as St Audries...
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:
