Bourne v The Commissioner for Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 294 (TC) (01 July 2010)

Bourne v The Commissioner for Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 294 (TC) (01 July 2010)

Flat 2A was constructed with the intention of sale and was temporarily let, constituting construction in the course or furtherance of a business under s 35 VATA 1994, making it ineligible for the DIY VAT refund. The appellant failed to provide evidence of misleading guidance from HMRC, and the invoices did not meet the statutory requirements for VAT refund claims.

Citation
[2010] UKFTT 294
Parties
Appellant: William Bourne; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
01 July 2010
Procedural Posture
VAT Refund Appeal (diy Builders’ Scheme) / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT, DIY Builders’ Scheme, Legitimate Expectation, Business Activity, Documentary Requirements for VAT Refund
Tax Law VAT DIY Builders’ Scheme Legitimate Expectation Business Activity Documentary Requirements for VAT Refund

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Bourne

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Refund Appeal (diy Builders’ Scheme) / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the construction of Flat 2A was carried out in the course or furtherance of a business under s 35 Value Added Tax Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was misled by HMRC guidance and can claim legitimate expectation
  3. 3 Whether invoices 400 and 417 met the statutory requirements for VAT refund claims

Ratio Decidendi

Flat 2A was constructed with the intention of sale and was temporarily let, constituting construction in the course or furtherance of a business under s 35 VATA 1994, making it ineligible for the DIY VAT refund. The appellant failed to provide evidence of misleading guidance from HMRC, and the invoices did not meet the statutory requirements for VAT refund claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appellant's claim for a VAT refund under s 35 VATA 1994 in respect of Flat 2A is dismissed.
  • The appellant's claim in respect of invoices 400 and 417 is dismissed.