In IS Jennings v HMRC (No 2) (TC01160 – 26 May) a woman (J) reclaimed VAT under VATA 1994 s 35 on materials which she had purchased for the construction of a log cabin. The relevant planning permission provided that the cabin ‘shall not be occupied during the month of February in any calendar year’.
HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that the effect of VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 Note 13 was that no refund was due. J appealed contending that Group 5 Note 13 did not apply to VATA 1994 s 35.
The Tribunal accepted this contention (see Decision TC00362) holding that Note 13 only applied to cases within Group 5 Item 1 ie where a building was purchased from a developer.
It did not apply to cases within Group...
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 IS Jennings v HMRC (No 2) (TC01160 – 26 May) a woman (J) reclaimed VAT under VATA 1994 s 35 on materials which she had purchased for the construction of a log cabin. The relevant planning permission provided that the cabin ‘shall not be occupied during the month of February in any calendar year’.
HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that the effect of VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 Note 13 was that no refund was due. J appealed contending that Group 5 Note 13 did not apply to VATA 1994 s 35.
The Tribunal accepted this contention (see Decision TC00362) holding that Note 13 only applied to cases within Group 5 Item 1 ie where a building was purchased from a developer.
It did not apply to cases within Group...
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:
