In HMRC v J3 Building Solutions [2017] UKUT 253 (21 June 2017) the UT found that works carried out to a building which had not been completely demolished did not qualify for zero-rating.
The redevelopment at issue had involved demolishing a coach house and its extensions save for two external walls and part of a third. The issue was whether the redevelopment had constituted the ‘conversion reconstruction or alteration of an existing building’ (VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 note 16(a)) so that the supplies of construction services were taken out of zero-rating.
The FTT had found that the external walls had not been retained to comply with conditions for planning consent so that the conditions of note 18(b) were not fulfilled. However J3 argued that there had been a point at which the ‘existing building’ had...
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 J3 Building Solutions [2017] UKUT 253 (21 June 2017) the UT found that works carried out to a building which had not been completely demolished did not qualify for zero-rating.
The redevelopment at issue had involved demolishing a coach house and its extensions save for two external walls and part of a third. The issue was whether the redevelopment had constituted the ‘conversion reconstruction or alteration of an existing building’ (VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 note 16(a)) so that the supplies of construction services were taken out of zero-rating.
The FTT had found that the external walls had not been retained to comply with conditions for planning consent so that the conditions of note 18(b) were not fulfilled. However J3 argued that there had been a point at which the ‘existing building’ had...
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:
