Robert Morfee v Revenue and Customs (VAT - APPEALS : Costs) [2016] UKFTT 601 (TC) (22 August 2016)

Robert Morfee v Revenue and Customs (VAT - APPEALS : Costs) [2016] UKFTT 601 (TC) (22 August 2016)

The roofing works were supplied in the course of an approved alteration of a protected building, as part of a larger project for which listed building consent was obtained, and thus should be zero-rated under item 2, Group 6, Schedule 8, VATA 1994. The exclusion for repairs or maintenance does not require dissection of integral works within an approved alteration. The strike-out application in TC/2013/00369 succeeded because there was no appealable decision by HMRC regarding VAT liability, and thus the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. HMRC did not act unreasonably in their conduct of the proceedings.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 601
Parties
Appellant: Robert Morfee; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 August 2016
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal and Costs Application / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Substantive and Procedural Determination
Outcome
Appeal TC/2014/05172 allowed; appeal TC/2013/00369 dismissed; costs application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Value Added Tax, Zero Rating of Building Works, Listed Buildings, Approved Alterations, Tribunal Procedure, Costs Applications
Tax Law Value Added Tax Zero Rating of Building Works Listed Buildings Approved Alterations Tribunal Procedure Costs Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Morfee

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal and Costs Application / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Substantive and Procedural Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether roofing works to a listed outbuilding were zero-rated as approved alterations under item 2, Group 6, Schedule 8, VATA 1994
  2. 2 Whether HMRC’s strike-out application in appeal TC/2013/00369 should succeed for lack of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether HMRC acted unreasonably so as to justify a costs order against them

Ratio Decidendi

The roofing works were supplied in the course of an approved alteration of a protected building, as part of a larger project for which listed building consent was obtained, and thus should be zero-rated under item 2, Group 6, Schedule 8, VATA 1994. The exclusion for repairs or maintenance does not require dissection of integral works within an approved alteration. The strike-out application in TC/2013/00369 succeeded because there was no appealable decision by HMRC regarding VAT liability, and thus the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. HMRC did not act unreasonably in their conduct of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal TC/2014/05172 allowed; appeal TC/2013/00369 dismissed; costs application dismissed.

Orders

  • The roofing works are to be zero-rated as approved alterations under item 2, Group 6, Schedule 8, VATA 1994.
  • Appeal TC/2013/00369 is struck out for lack of jurisdiction under rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009.