Gardiner & Anor v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 726 (TC) (27 November 2012)

Gardiner & Anor v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 726 (TC) (27 November 2012)

The construction of the dwelling was carried out in the course or furtherance of a business, as evidenced by the planning permission conditions, the planning consultant's report, and the representations made to obtain approval. The intention at the time of construction was to use the dwelling as part of the business, making the Appellants ineligible for VAT refund under Section 35(1)(b) VATA 1994.

Citation
[2012] UKFTT 726
Parties
Appellants: Mr & Mrs S Gardiner; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
27 November 2012
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
DIY Builder's VAT Refund Scheme, Section 35 VATA 1994, Planning Permission Conditions, Business Use of Dwellings
Tax Law VAT DIY Builder's VAT Refund Scheme Section 35 VATA 1994 Planning Permission Conditions Business Use of Dwellings

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr & Mrs S Gardiner

Appellants

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the construction of the dwelling was carried out otherwise than in the course or furtherance of any business under Section 35(1)(b) VATA 1994
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants are entitled to a VAT refund under the DIY Builder's Scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The construction of the dwelling was carried out in the course or furtherance of a business, as evidenced by the planning permission conditions, the planning consultant's report, and the representations made to obtain approval. The intention at the time of construction was to use the dwelling as part of the business, making the Appellants ineligible for VAT refund under Section 35(1)(b) VATA 1994.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed