Customs and Excise v Tinsley

Customs and Excise v Tinsley

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.

Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise; Defendant: Tinsley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Value Added Tax, Zero Rating, Protected Buildings, Construction Works
Tax Law Value Added Tax Zero Rating Protected Buildings Construction Works

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise

Claimant

Tinsley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether construction of a terrace at Narborough Hall qualifies for 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

  • No order for costs