Podolsky v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 387 (TC) (31 December 2009)

Podolsky v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 387 (TC) (31 December 2009)

The appeal fails because part of the subject building was used as a garage occupied together with a dwelling within the relevant period, bringing it within the exclusion in Note 8 of Group 5 to Schedule 8 of the VAT Act 1994. This prevents the building from qualifying as non-residential for the purposes of section...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 387 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Podolsky; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (VAT)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
31 December 2009
Procedural Posture
VAT Refund Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Refund, Residential Conversion, Non Residential Building, Garage Exclusion, Schedule 8 Group 5 Note 8
Tax Law VAT Refund Residential Conversion Non Residential Building Garage Exclusion Schedule 8 Group 5 Note 8

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Joseph Podolsky

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (VAT)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Refund Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a VAT refund under section 35(1C) of the VAT Act 1994 for the conversion of a building claimed to be non-residential prior to conversion, or whether the exclusion in Note 8 of Group 5 to Schedule 8 applies.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal fails because part of the subject building was used as a garage occupied together with a dwelling within the relevant period, bringing it within the exclusion in Note 8 of Group 5 to Schedule 8 of the VAT Act 1994. This prevents the building from qualifying as non-residential for the purposes of section 35(1D), and thus the appellant is not entitled to a VAT refund.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed