Sassi v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 280 (TC) (23 October 2009)

Sassi v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 280 (TC) (23 October 2009)

The Tribunal found that, although the appellant let Flat B for income, the overall activity was not conducted on sound and recognised business principles and was not predominantly concerned with making supplies for consideration. The wider context, including the research and academic purposes, outweighed the factors indicating business activity. Therefore, the works were carried out otherwise than in the course or furtherance of any business under s 35 VATA.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 280
Parties
Appellant: Paola Sassi; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (VAT)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
23 October 2009
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
VAT, DIY Builders Scheme, Business Activity, Input Tax Repayment, Letting of Property
Tax Law VAT DIY Builders Scheme Business Activity Input Tax Repayment Letting of Property

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paola Sassi

Appellant

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

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the construction and letting of one of two flats by the appellant was 'in the course or furtherance of any business' under s 35 VATA, thereby disqualifying input tax repayment under the DIY builders scheme.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, although the appellant let Flat B for income, the overall activity was not conducted on sound and recognised business principles and was not predominantly concerned with making supplies for consideration. The wider context, including the research and academic purposes, outweighed the factors indicating business activity. Therefore, the works were carried out otherwise than in the course or furtherance of any business under s 35 VATA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • HMRC's decision to refuse part of the appellant's claim for repayment of input tax is set aside.