Williamson v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 254 (TC) (07 June 2010)
The restoration works did not qualify for zero-rating because they constituted the conversion, reconstruction, alteration, or enlargement of an existing building, as defined and excluded by VATA 1994 Schedule 8, Group 5, Note (16). The property was not a protected or listed building, so Group 6 did not apply. The essential structure and nature of the building was retained, and the works fell within the statutory exclusions.
- Citation
- [2010] UKFTT 254
- Parties
- Appellant: Jacqueline Williamson; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 07 June 2010
- Procedural Posture
- VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Value Added Tax, Zero Rating, Building Works, Restoration of Dwellinghouse
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jacqueline Williamson
Appellant
The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Respondents
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether restoration works to a dwellinghouse qualify for VAT zero-rating under VATA 1994 Schedule 8, Groups 5 and 6
Ratio Decidendi
The restoration works did not qualify for zero-rating because they constituted the conversion, reconstruction, alteration, or enlargement of an existing building, as defined and excluded by VATA 1994 Schedule 8, Group 5, Note (16). The property was not a protected or listed building, so Group 6 did not apply. The essential structure and nature of the building was retained, and the works fell within the statutory exclusions.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment