Podolsky v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 387 (TC) (31 December 2009)
The subject building, having been used in part as a garage occupied together with a dwelling within the relevant period, falls within Note 8 of Group 5 to Schedule 8 as applied by section 35(4) of the VAT Act 1994, and is therefore excluded from qualification as a non-residential building for the purposes of a VAT...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] UKFTT 387
- 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 Chamber) Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- VAT Refund, Residential Conversion, Non Residential Building, Garage Exclusion, DIY Housebuilder Scheme
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Joseph Podolsky
Appellant
The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (VAT)
Respondents
Procedural Posture
VAT Refund Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Legal Issues
- 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 to a dwelling, considering the application of Note 8 of Group 5 to Schedule 8 as applied by section 35(4)
Ratio Decidendi
The subject building, having been used in part as a garage occupied together with a dwelling within the relevant period, falls within Note 8 of Group 5 to Schedule 8 as applied by section 35(4) of the VAT Act 1994, and is therefore excluded from qualification as a non-residential building for the purposes of a VAT refund under section 35(1D).
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