Customs and Excise v Tinsley [2005] EWHC 1508 (Ch) (10 June 2005)

Customs and Excise v Tinsley [2005] EWHC 1508 (Ch) (10 June 2005)

The works were alterations to the garden, not to the protected building itself, and the garden was not designed to remain as or become a dwelling. Therefore, the requirements for zero-rating under the VAT Act 1994 are not satisfied.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1508 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise; Defendant: Tinsley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2005
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal / High Court Appeal From VAT Duties Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
VAT Zero Rating, Protected Buildings, Construction Works, Interpretation of VAT Act 1994
Tax Law VAT Zero Rating Protected Buildings Construction Works Interpretation of VAT Act 1994

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise

Claimant

Tinsley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal / High Court Appeal From VAT Duties Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether construction of a terrace at a protected building qualifies for VAT zero-rating under the VAT Act 1994

Ratio Decidendi

The works were alterations to the garden, not to the protected building itself, and the garden was not designed to remain as or become a dwelling. Therefore, the requirements for zero-rating under the VAT Act 1994 are not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • VAT Duties Tribunal decision set aside
  • No order for costs