In Mrs and Mr Howells v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 412 (10 August 2015) the FTT found that a claim under VATA 1994 s 35 (DIY scheme) had not been inaccurate.
HMRC had imposed a penalty for inaccuracy of a claim under s 35 on the ground that the taxpayers had not provided evidence that the building had remained unoccupied over a ten year period. The FTT pointed out that this failure may justify a finding that the taxpayers had not taken reasonable care but it did not make the claim form they had completed inaccurate.
In the alternative HMRC also claimed that by answering ‘yes’ to the question of whether they held evidence of ten years of non-residential occupation (question 11) the taxpayers had made their claim form inaccurate. The FTT pointed out however that nothing in...
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 Mrs and Mr Howells v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 412 (10 August 2015) the FTT found that a claim under VATA 1994 s 35 (DIY scheme) had not been inaccurate.
HMRC had imposed a penalty for inaccuracy of a claim under s 35 on the ground that the taxpayers had not provided evidence that the building had remained unoccupied over a ten year period. The FTT pointed out that this failure may justify a finding that the taxpayers had not taken reasonable care but it did not make the claim form they had completed inaccurate.
In the alternative HMRC also claimed that by answering ‘yes’ to the question of whether they held evidence of ten years of non-residential occupation (question 11) the taxpayers had made their claim form inaccurate. The FTT pointed out however that nothing in...
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:
