In R Drummond v HMRC (TC02456 – 24 January) an individual (D) lived in a bungalow in the grounds of a caravan park. He built a house adjacent to the park. The relevant planning permission stipulated that the house should only be occupied by ‘a person solely or mainly employed or last employed prior to retirement at the adjacent caravan park’ and explained that new housing should only be allowed in this location ‘where it is essential in the interests of a site manager or other essential worker’ D reclaimed VAT on the cost of constructing the house under VATA 1994 s 35. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that since the planning permission prohibited the separate use of the house the effect of VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 Note 2(c) was that...
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 R Drummond v HMRC (TC02456 – 24 January) an individual (D) lived in a bungalow in the grounds of a caravan park. He built a house adjacent to the park. The relevant planning permission stipulated that the house should only be occupied by ‘a person solely or mainly employed or last employed prior to retirement at the adjacent caravan park’ and explained that new housing should only be allowed in this location ‘where it is essential in the interests of a site manager or other essential worker’ D reclaimed VAT on the cost of constructing the house under VATA 1994 s 35. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that since the planning permission prohibited the separate use of the house the effect of VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 Note 2(c) was that...
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:
