Since 1927 the leading authority on tax law, practice and administration

Operation is commercial

© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.

14 February 2011

Issue: 4292 / Categories: Tax cases , VAT

Lower Mill Estate Ltd v CRC, Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

The taxpayer company held a freehold of land with planning permission to build up to 575 holiday homes. Leases for 999 years were granted to customers buying plots and VAT was charged on the leases.

Customers then contracted with another company CBL to build the holiday homes. The taxpayer and CBL were owned by a single shareholder JMP. CBL treated its supplies as zero-rated.

HMRC raised a VAT assessment on the basis that the leases and build agreements were a single supply of completed holiday homes.

The taxpayer and CBL appealed.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the transactions were an abusive practice that needed to be redefined in accordance with the principles laid down in Halifax plc v CCE [2006] STC 919 although it did not agree with HMRC that the supplies should be treated as...

If you or your firm subscribes to Taxation.co.uk, please click the login box below:

If you are not a subscriber but are a registered user or have a free trial, please enter your details in the following boxes:

Subscribe Now...

Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.

Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this item in full.

Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.

Operation is commercial

© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.

14 February 2011

Lower Mill Estate Ltd v CRC, Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

The taxpayer company held a freehold of land with planning permission to build up to 575 holiday homes. Leases for 999 years were granted to customers buying plots and VAT was charged on the leases.

Customers then contracted with another company CBL to build the holiday homes. The taxpayer and CBL were owned by a single shareholder JMP. CBL treated its supplies as zero-rated.

HMRC raised a VAT assessment on the basis that the leases and build agreements were a single supply of completed holiday homes.

The taxpayer and CBL appealed.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the transactions were an abusive practice that needed to be redefined in accordance with the principles laid down in Halifax plc v CCE [2006] STC 919 although it did not agree with HMRC that the supplies should be treated as...

If you or your firm subscribes to Taxation.co.uk, please click the login box below:

If you are not a subscriber but are a registered user or have a free trial, please enter your details in the following boxes:

Subscribe Now...

Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.

Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this item in full.

Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.

Issue:

4292

Categories: Tax cases [1] , VAT [2]

SourceURL:

Links:

READERS' FORUM premium icon

Practice tip: Increase the perceived value of your services Readers’ forum: Possibility of mixed-use relief claim Readers’ forum: Do I need to inform HMRC of ex clients’ death? Readers forum: Why can’t HMRC get the simple things right Readers’ forum: VAT problem created by disbursement mark-up?

FIVE WAYS TO MAKE ACCOUNTS PRODUCTION AND TAX EASIER.
Download the exclusive Xero
free report here.

New queries

Please email any questions you might have
to: taxation@lexisnexis.co.uk.

NEWS

Estimated £1bn ‘cost’ of non-dom status reform challenged Reform of R&D advance assurance scheme is needed HMRC checking remittance basis claims High earners may need to file 2021-22 returns by 29 September ATT publishes Budget recommendations

Third slide

Deadline dates for October 2024

CASES

Were Covid trading problems a ‘reasonable excuse’ for paying VAT late? Third-party application for redaction of information fails Taxpayer did not cease to be resident in the UK Taxpayer’s challenge to penalties fails Do related party rules apply?

MOST POPULAR

Were Covid trading problems a ‘reasonable excuse’ for paying VAT late? Third-party application for redaction of information fails Taxpayer did not cease to be resident in the UK Taxpayer’s challenge to penalties fails Do related party rules apply?

back to top icon