In HMRC v D Bryce (t/a The Barn) (UT – 24 January) a woman (B) operated a children’s nursery in a converted barn. She also organised children’s parties in the barn charging £7.95 per child (with a minimum charge of £100 per party). Initially she accounted for VAT on her receipts from these parties. Subsequently she submitted a repayment claim on the basis that she should have treated her supplies as exempt. The Upper Tribunal upheld HMRC’s rejection of the claim. Roth J held that B was making a single supply which failed to qualify for exemption.
Why it matters: The Upper Tribunal has allowed HMRC’s appeal against the First-Tier decision holding that there was a single supply which was not a ‘licence to occupy land’ and failed to qualify for exemption.
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 D Bryce (t/a The Barn) (UT – 24 January) a woman (B) operated a children’s nursery in a converted barn. She also organised children’s parties in the barn charging £7.95 per child (with a minimum charge of £100 per party). Initially she accounted for VAT on her receipts from these parties. Subsequently she submitted a repayment claim on the basis that she should have treated her supplies as exempt. The Upper Tribunal upheld HMRC’s rejection of the claim. Roth J held that B was making a single supply which failed to qualify for exemption.
Why it matters: The Upper Tribunal has allowed HMRC’s appeal against the First-Tier decision holding that there was a single supply which was not a ‘licence to occupy land’ and failed to qualify for exemption.
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:
