Samuel v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 633 (TC) (08 December 2010)

Samuel v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 633 (TC) (08 December 2010)

The appeal was dismissed because, although the retention of the two walls was a condition or requirement of the planning consent (whether explicit or by necessary implication), the statutory requirement for VAT recovery in cases of double façade retention is that the building must be located on a 'corner site'. The appellant's building was not on a corner site, and thus the statutory test was not met.

Citation
[2010] UKFTT 633 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Martin Samuel; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (VAT)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
08 December 2010
Procedural Posture
VAT Refund Appeal (first Tier Tribunal Tax) / Final Decision at First Instance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Self Builder VAT Refund, Planning Consent Conditions, Definition of New Dwelling House, Interpretation of VAT Act 1994 Schedule 8 Group 5 Note 18
Tax Law VAT Self Builder VAT Refund Planning Consent Conditions Definition of New Dwelling House Interpretation of VAT Act 1994 Schedule 8 Group 5 Note 18

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

Parties

Martin Samuel

Appellant

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

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Refund Appeal (first Tier Tribunal Tax) / Final Decision at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the retention of two walls was a condition of statutory planning consent for VAT purposes
  2. 2 Whether the building was located on a 'corner site' as required by VAT Act 1994 Schedule 8 Group 5 Note 18(b)
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is entitled to recover VAT on the construction of the new dwelling-house

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, although the retention of the two walls was a condition or requirement of the planning consent (whether explicit or by necessary implication), the statutory requirement for VAT recovery in cases of double façade retention is that the building must be located on a 'corner site'. The appellant's building was not on a corner site, and thus the statutory test was not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed