In HMRC v Wetheralds Construction [2018] UKUT 173 (30 May 2018) the UT found that the supply of a roof system did not fall within the reduced rate provisions of VATA 1994 Sch 7A Group 2.
The FTT had allowed Wetheralds’ appeal against the decision of HMRC that its supplies of the ‘Solid Roof System’ did not qualify for the reduced rate of VAT.
HMRC argued that the FTT had made two errors of law in reaching its decision. First it had erred in its application of Pinevale [2014] UKUT 202; it should have concluded that the supplies were not merely supplies of insulating materials applied to a pre-existing roof. Further or alternatively the FTT erred in its application of the principles in CPP (Case C-349/96) and Levob (Case C-41/04) in concluding that insulation predominated overall to determine the characterisation of...
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 Wetheralds Construction [2018] UKUT 173 (30 May 2018) the UT found that the supply of a roof system did not fall within the reduced rate provisions of VATA 1994 Sch 7A Group 2.
The FTT had allowed Wetheralds’ appeal against the decision of HMRC that its supplies of the ‘Solid Roof System’ did not qualify for the reduced rate of VAT.
HMRC argued that the FTT had made two errors of law in reaching its decision. First it had erred in its application of Pinevale [2014] UKUT 202; it should have concluded that the supplies were not merely supplies of insulating materials applied to a pre-existing roof. Further or alternatively the FTT erred in its application of the principles in CPP (Case C-349/96) and Levob (Case C-41/04) in concluding that insulation predominated overall to determine the characterisation of...
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:
