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, the building was not located on a 'corner site' as required by Note 18(b) to Group 5 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to recover the VAT claimed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] UKFTT 633
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 Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Recovery, Self Builder's Refund, Planning Consent Conditions, Interpretation of VAT Act 1994 Schedule 8 Group 5 Note 18
Tax Law VAT Recovery Self Builder's Refund Planning Consent Conditions Interpretation of VAT Act 1994 Schedule 8 Group 5 Note 18

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 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 Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirement to retain two walls was a condition of planning consent for VAT purposes
  2. 2 Whether the building was located on a 'corner site' as required by Note 18(b) to Group 5 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, although the retention of the two walls was a condition or requirement of the planning consent, the building was not located on a 'corner site' as required by Note 18(b) to Group 5 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to recover the VAT claimed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed