In HMRC v Atholl House Productions Ltd [2021] UKUT 0037 (TCC) the UT found that the FTT had erred in its application of Autoclenz. However after re-making the decision by applying the test in Ready Mixed Concrete to what it judged to be the correct formulation of the hypothetical contract the UT came to the same conclusion as the FTT and dismissed HMRC’s appeal. (We will review this case in more detail shortly).
VAT welfare exemption
In The Lilias Graham Trust v HMRC [2021] UKUT 0036 (TCC) the UT dismissed the taxpayer's appeal finding that the FTT did not err in law by concluding the supply of accommodation was ancillary to the provision of care treatment or instruction and it therefore fell within the exception to the exclusion from exemption in VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 7 note 7.
In HMRC v Atholl House Productions Ltd [2021] UKUT 0037 (TCC) the UT found that the FTT had erred in its application of Autoclenz. However after re-making the decision by applying the test in Ready Mixed Concrete to what it judged to be the correct formulation of the hypothetical contract the UT came to the same conclusion as the FTT and dismissed HMRC’s appeal. (We will review this case in more detail shortly).
VAT welfare exemption
In The Lilias Graham Trust v HMRC [2021] UKUT 0036 (TCC) the UT dismissed the taxpayer's appeal finding that the FTT did not err in law by concluding the supply of accommodation was ancillary to the provision of care treatment or instruction and it therefore fell within the exception to the exclusion from exemption in VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 7 note 7.
