.png)
.png)
CRC v A Patel, Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)
The taxpayer received planning permission to extend a house that was later found to be in need of demolition and rebuilding.
He completed the reconstruction in June 2011 and moved in to the new property submitting a claim in August 2011 for repayment of VAT incurred during the work.
HMRC rejected the claim on the basis the planning permission had not provided for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new one: the requirements of VATA 1994 s 35 and Sch 8 group 5 had not been met.
The taxpayer received retrospective planning permission in September 2012 for the work that had been carried out – and the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) allowed his appeal against the Revenue’s decision.
The matter moved to the Upper Tribunal which said the FTT had not given sufficient consideration to the requirements of reg 201 of the VAT...
Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.
