In A D Reeves v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 195 (23 March 2016) the FTT found that a building had not been completely demolished so that no refund was due under the DIY scheme (VATA 1994 s 35).
Mr Reeves had purchased a bungalow and obtained planning permission for ‘extension and alteration to dwelling’. During the course of the work some of the exterior walls had collapsed and the architect’s advice had been to demolish the remaining exterior walls. The planning authority had confirmed that no amendment to the planning permission was needed provided that the new exterior walls were built on the existing foundations. In the end the interior wall had to be demolished as well and all that was retained was a gable wall.
HMRC refused Mr Reeves’ claim for a refund under the...
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 A D Reeves v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 195 (23 March 2016) the FTT found that a building had not been completely demolished so that no refund was due under the DIY scheme (VATA 1994 s 35).
Mr Reeves had purchased a bungalow and obtained planning permission for ‘extension and alteration to dwelling’. During the course of the work some of the exterior walls had collapsed and the architect’s advice had been to demolish the remaining exterior walls. The planning authority had confirmed that no amendment to the planning permission was needed provided that the new exterior walls were built on the existing foundations. In the end the interior wall had to be demolished as well and all that was retained was a gable wall.
HMRC refused Mr Reeves’ claim for a refund under the...
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:
