In HMRC v Anthony Barkas [2014] UKUT 0558 (15 January 2015) the UT found that an occupancy restriction did not prevent the application of the ‘DIY builders scheme’.
Mr Barkas had appealed against HMRC’s decision to refuse his claim under the ‘DIY Builders Scheme’ VATA 1994 s 35 in relation to works carried out on two adjacent barns to convert them into an office and a dwelling. The planning consent for a ‘live/work facility’ provided that the office could only be used by the occupiers of the dwelling. HMRC therefore contended that the condition in VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 note 2(c) was not satisfied.
Applying Shields [2014] UKUT 0453 the UT noted that the terms of the planning permission may affect the use of the building but that a ‘live/work facility’ was ‘not a term of art. The UT found that 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 HMRC v Anthony Barkas [2014] UKUT 0558 (15 January 2015) the UT found that an occupancy restriction did not prevent the application of the ‘DIY builders scheme’.
Mr Barkas had appealed against HMRC’s decision to refuse his claim under the ‘DIY Builders Scheme’ VATA 1994 s 35 in relation to works carried out on two adjacent barns to convert them into an office and a dwelling. The planning consent for a ‘live/work facility’ provided that the office could only be used by the occupiers of the dwelling. HMRC therefore contended that the condition in VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 note 2(c) was not satisfied.
Applying Shields [2014] UKUT 0453 the UT noted that the terms of the planning permission may affect the use of the building but that a ‘live/work facility’ was ‘not a term of art. The UT found that 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:
