In HMRC v Caithness Rugby Football Club[2016] UKUT 354 (27 July 2016) the UT found that a clubhouse built by a rugby club benefited the local community even though the local community had no control over its use.
Caithness Rugby Club had built a new clubhouse. HMRC had refused to treat the construction works as zero rated; however the FTT had found that the works were zero rated (VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 note 6(b)) as the clubhouse was to be used ‘as a village hall or similarly’.
HMRC referred to the Second VAT Directive art 17 which provided that reduced rates (or exemptions) should only apply for ‘clearly defined reasons and for the benefit of the final consumer’. HMRC contended that in order for the local community to be the final consumer of the construction...
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 Caithness Rugby Football Club[2016] UKUT 354 (27 July 2016) the UT found that a clubhouse built by a rugby club benefited the local community even though the local community had no control over its use.
Caithness Rugby Club had built a new clubhouse. HMRC had refused to treat the construction works as zero rated; however the FTT had found that the works were zero rated (VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 note 6(b)) as the clubhouse was to be used ‘as a village hall or similarly’.
HMRC referred to the Second VAT Directive art 17 which provided that reduced rates (or exemptions) should only apply for ‘clearly defined reasons and for the benefit of the final consumer’. HMRC contended that in order for the local community to be the final consumer of the construction...
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:
