In HMRC v R Burton [2016] UKUT 20 (21 January 2016) the UT found that a planning consent contained a condition that imposed a prohibition of separate use so that no refund was due under VATA 1994 s 35.
A planning consent for the redevelopment of a building contained the following condition: ‘the occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed or last employed in Park Hall Lake Fishery or a widow or widower of such a person or any resident dependants’. The FTT had held that the building was ‘designed as a dwelling’ within the meaning of VATA 1994 s 35 and Sch 8 group 5 note 2(c) as its ‘separate use or disposal’ was not prohibited by the planning consent.
The UT referred to Shields [2014] UKUT 453 as authority for the proposition that...
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 R Burton [2016] UKUT 20 (21 January 2016) the UT found that a planning consent contained a condition that imposed a prohibition of separate use so that no refund was due under VATA 1994 s 35.
A planning consent for the redevelopment of a building contained the following condition: ‘the occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed or last employed in Park Hall Lake Fishery or a widow or widower of such a person or any resident dependants’. The FTT had held that the building was ‘designed as a dwelling’ within the meaning of VATA 1994 s 35 and Sch 8 group 5 note 2(c) as its ‘separate use or disposal’ was not prohibited by the planning consent.
The UT referred to Shields [2014] UKUT 453 as authority for the proposition that...
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:
