HMRC has published VAT Brief 8/2022 which clarifies its position in relation to making a claim under the DIY housebuilders scheme, following the First-tier Tribunal decision in Andrew Ellis and Jane Bromley [2021] UKFTT 343 (TC).
HMRC policy is that only a single claim is allowed under the DIY scheme, and this has not changed. However, where it is agreed that a claim has been repaid in error, HMRC will accept a subsequent claim with evidence that the claim has been made within three months of completion.
In the case of Andrew Ellis and Jane Bromley, two DIY housebuilders claims were submitted to HMRC. HMRC repaid the first claim having accepted valuation for council tax purposes as evidence of completion. HMRC received a further claim following the grant of planning permission by the local planning authority for further required works. The second claim was rejected as it was out of time and as a valid claim had already been made and paid.
The tribunal found that the first claim was paid in error as the evidence of completion given by the Valuation Office was invalid and should not have been accepted. As the first claim was paid in error the second claim should have been allowed and was not outside the three-month time limit.
HMRC has published VAT Brief 8/2022 which clarifies its position in relation to making a claim under the DIY housebuilders scheme, following the First-tier Tribunal decision in Andrew Ellis and Jane Bromley [2021] UKFTT 343 (TC).
HMRC policy is that only a single claim is allowed under the DIY scheme, and this has not changed. However, where it is agreed that a claim has been repaid in error, HMRC will accept a subsequent claim with evidence that the claim has been made within three months of completion.
In the case of Andrew Ellis and Jane Bromley, two DIY housebuilders claims were submitted to HMRC. HMRC repaid the first claim having accepted valuation for council tax purposes as evidence of completion. HMRC received a further claim following the grant of planning permission by the local planning authority for further required works. The second claim was rejected as it was out of time and as a valid claim had already been made and paid.
The tribunal found that the first claim was paid in error as the evidence of completion given by the Valuation Office was invalid and should not have been accepted. As the first claim was paid in error the second claim should have been allowed and was not outside the three-month time limit.
