In J Clark v HMRC (No 2) (TC00723 – 20 October) an individual (C) had converted a garage and stable block into a residential dwelling for the use of himself and his wife. He reclaimed VAT on the work under VATA 1994 s 35. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that before the conversion the building had been used as a ‘residential garage’. C appealed. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and allowed the appeal in part (TC00552) holding that VATA 1994 s 35(1D) ‘clearly envisages a case where part of a building is non-residential and part is residential (or not non-residential). It specifically does not deny relief in those circumstances but instead provides for works to be within the meaning of “residential conversion” and so to qualify for relief “to the extent...
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 J Clark v HMRC (No 2) (TC00723 – 20 October) an individual (C) had converted a garage and stable block into a residential dwelling for the use of himself and his wife. He reclaimed VAT on the work under VATA 1994 s 35. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that before the conversion the building had been used as a ‘residential garage’. C appealed. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and allowed the appeal in part (TC00552) holding that VATA 1994 s 35(1D) ‘clearly envisages a case where part of a building is non-residential and part is residential (or not non-residential). It specifically does not deny relief in those circumstances but instead provides for works to be within the meaning of “residential conversion” and so to qualify for relief “to the extent...
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:
