In D & Mrs E Sherratt v HMRC (TC01179 – 7 June) a couple arranged for the construction of a new farmhouse adjacent to some existing farm buildings.
They reclaimed input tax under VATA 1994 s 35. HMRC rejected the claim on the grounds that the relevant planning permission prohibited the separate disposal of the house so that the effect of VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 Note 2(c) was that it did not qualify as a ‘building designed as a dwelling’.
The Tribunal dismissed the couple’s appeal against this decision.
Why it matters: To the traditional ‘man on the Clapham omnibus’ the house here was clearly a ‘building designed as a dwelling’.
However because it could not be disposed of separately from the existing farm buildings the effect...
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 & Mrs E Sherratt v HMRC (TC01179 – 7 June) a couple arranged for the construction of a new farmhouse adjacent to some existing farm buildings.
They reclaimed input tax under VATA 1994 s 35. HMRC rejected the claim on the grounds that the relevant planning permission prohibited the separate disposal of the house so that the effect of VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 Note 2(c) was that it did not qualify as a ‘building designed as a dwelling’.
The Tribunal dismissed the couple’s appeal against this decision.
Why it matters: To the traditional ‘man on the Clapham omnibus’ the house here was clearly a ‘building designed as a dwelling’.
However because it could not be disposed of separately from the existing farm buildings the effect...
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:
