Lawton v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (VALUE ADDED TAX DIY REPAYMENT SCHEME) [2024] UKFTT 892 (TC) (07 October 2024)

Lawton v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (VALUE ADDED TAX DIY REPAYMENT SCHEME) [2024] UKFTT 892 (TC) (07 October 2024)

The tribunal held that only one VAT refund claim is permitted under the DIY Housebuilders Scheme, and the second claim for an extension to an existing dwelling is ineligible by statute. HMRC's decision to refuse the second claim was correct as the extension did not constitute a new dwelling and no error was made in the initial claim's repayment.

Citation
[2024] UKFTT 892 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Brian Lawton; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
07 October 2024
Procedural Posture
VAT Refund Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT DIY Repayment Scheme, Eligibility of VAT Refund for Extensions, Single Claim Rule Under VAT Scheme
Tax Law VAT DIY Repayment Scheme Eligibility of VAT Refund for Extensions Single Claim Rule Under VAT Scheme

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Lawton

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a second VAT refund claim under the DIY Housebuilders Scheme is permissible for an extension to an existing dwelling
  2. 2 Whether HMRC's decision to disallow the second VAT refund claim was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal held that only one VAT refund claim is permitted under the DIY Housebuilders Scheme, and the second claim for an extension to an existing dwelling is ineligible by statute. HMRC's decision to refuse the second claim was correct as the extension did not constitute a new dwelling and no error was made in the initial claim's repayment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed