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)

The appellant constructed Flat 2A with the intention to sell, constituting a business activity under VAT law, thus disqualifying the claim for VAT refund under s 35. The appellant failed to provide evidence of misleading advice from HMRC, and the invoices did not meet the statutory requirements for VAT refund claims.

Citation
[2010] UKFTT 294 (TC)
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 Refund, DIY Builders’ Scheme, Legitimate Expectation, Business Activity, Documentary Requirements for VAT Claims
Tax Law Administrative Law VAT Refund DIY Builders’ Scheme Legitimate Expectation Business Activity Documentary Requirements for VAT Claims

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 2
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

The appellant constructed Flat 2A with the intention to sell, constituting a business activity under VAT law, thus disqualifying the claim for VAT refund under s 35. The appellant failed to provide evidence of misleading advice from HMRC, and the invoices did not meet the statutory requirements for VAT refund claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for VAT refund in respect of Flat 2A is dismissed as works were carried out in the course or furtherance of a business.
  • Claim in respect of invoices 400 and 417 is dismissed as invoices do not provide required information.