In Mrs SA Searle v HMRC (TC01521 – 21 November) a woman (S) bought a plot of land adjacent to her existing house. She wanted to build two semi-detached houses (one for each of her daughters) but the local council refused planning permission for this. The council subsequently agreed to grant planning permission for the construction of a bungalow ‘to provide two residential units for two related families’ subject to a covenant that the bungalow would only be occupied by S and her family. The planning permission showed an internal door between the units but the doorway was subsequently blocked up and plastered over. S claimed a refund of VAT under VATA 1994 s 35. HMRC rejected the claim on the grounds that the work failed to meet the requirements of VATA 1994 Sch 8 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 Mrs SA Searle v HMRC (TC01521 – 21 November) a woman (S) bought a plot of land adjacent to her existing house. She wanted to build two semi-detached houses (one for each of her daughters) but the local council refused planning permission for this. The council subsequently agreed to grant planning permission for the construction of a bungalow ‘to provide two residential units for two related families’ subject to a covenant that the bungalow would only be occupied by S and her family. The planning permission showed an internal door between the units but the doorway was subsequently blocked up and plastered over. S claimed a refund of VAT under VATA 1994 s 35. HMRC rejected the claim on the grounds that the work failed to meet the requirements of VATA 1994 Sch 8 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:
