Watson v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 526 (TC) (22 October 2010)

Watson v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 526 (TC) (22 October 2010)

The appellant's claim fails because the retrospective planning permission for the new dwelling was not backdated to before the commencement of the works. Therefore, at the time the works were carried out, there was no operative planning permission for a new dwelling, and the statutory requirements under Note 2(d) of Group 5 of Schedule 8 of VATA 1994 were not satisfied. The strict requirements of the VAT legislation preclude the refund.

Citation
[2010] UKFTT 526 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Michael James Watson; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 October 2010
Procedural Posture
VAT Refund Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Refunds, DIY Builders and Converters Scheme, Retrospective Planning Permission, Construction of Dwellings, Statutory Planning Consent
Tax Law Planning Law VAT Refunds DIY Builders and Converters Scheme Retrospective Planning Permission Construction of Dwellings Statutory Planning Consent

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

Parties

Michael James Watson

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Refund Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a VAT refund under the DIY Builders and Converters VAT Refund Scheme for the construction of a new dwelling where retrospective planning permission was granted but not backdated to before the commencement of works.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory requirements under Note 2(d) of Group 5 of Schedule 8 of VATA 1994 were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's claim fails because the retrospective planning permission for the new dwelling was not backdated to before the commencement of the works. Therefore, at the time the works were carried out, there was no operative planning permission for a new dwelling, and the statutory requirements under Note 2(d) of Group 5 of Schedule 8 of VATA 1994 were not satisfied. The strict requirements of the VAT legislation preclude the refund.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed