[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	First-tier Tribunal (Tax)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Tax) >> Lawlor v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 164 (TC) (13 July 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2009/TC00126.html Cite as: [2009] UKFTT 164 (TC)

[New search] [Help]

[2009] UKFTT 164 (TC)

Lawlor v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 164 (TC) (13 July 2009)
VAT - ZERO-RATING
Protected buildings

TC00126

Appeal Number: MAN/2008/0524

FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL TAX

VAT – ZERO RATING – PROTECTED BUILDING – No evidence that the supplies constituted approved alterations – Appeal dismissed

DECISION NOTICE (FULL REASONS)

Rule 35(2) The Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009

JOHN LAWLOR Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR

HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE and CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: MICHAEL TILDESLEY OBE (Chairman)

WARREN SNOWDON JP (Member)

Sitting in public at North Shields on 30 June 2009

The Appellant did not appear

Nigel Bird counsel instructed by the Solicitor's office of HM Revenue and Customs for HMRC

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2009


 


DECISION

The Appeal

1. The Appellant was appealing against an assessment dated 14 November 2007 in the sum of £9,939.00 for the periods ending 30 June 2005 and 31 March 2006.
2. The assessment related to supplies made by the Appellant in connection with works on a listed building known as Chatsworth House. The dispute concerned the correct VAT treatment of the building supplies. The Appellant contended that they were zero-rated; whereas HMRC regarded the supplies as standard rated.
3. The Appellant did not attend the hearing. He gave no reason for his non-attendance. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Appellant had been duly notified of the hearing, and decided to proceed in his absence in accordance with rule 33 of Tribunal Rules 2009.
4. The witness statement of Shirley Tweedie was admitted in evidence. Ms Tweedie was the HMRC officer who MADE the disputed assessment. No objection to the statement had been received from the Appellant. A bundle of documents was presented in evidence.

Reasons for the Decision

5. Schedule 8 of the VAT Act 1994 sets out those supplies of goods and services which for the purposes of the Act are to be treated as zero-rated. Group 6 of that schedule deals with protected buildings.
6. Item 2 group 6 of schedule 8 zero rates supplies of any services made in the course of an approved alteration of a protected building other than the services of an architect, surveyor or any person acting as consultant or in a supervisory capacity.
7. Note 6 to group 6 defines approved alteration. Essentially under note 6 only those alterations which have been approved under listed building consent and executed in accordance with that consent qualify for zero rating. Further approved alteration does not include any works of repair or maintenance, or any incidental alteration to the fabric of a building.
8. The Appellant's evidence in support of the zero-rating of the supplies to Chatsworth House was an e-mail from Peter Fisher of Harrogate Borough Council dated 15 October 2004 which described the works carried out on the building. The works included, amongst other matters, checking the timbers of the roof, re-pointing work to the exterior, restoring two internal rooms, and re-lining the basement. None of the works required listed building consent.
9. The Appellant's ground of appeal was that the works to Chatsworth House were structural even though listed building consent was not required.
10. The test for zero rating under item 2 group 6 schedule 8 is whether the supplies were made in the course of an approved alteration to a listed building not whether they were structural. The Appellant's evidence showed that the works to Chatsworth House did not require listed building consent, which was a necessary statutory requirement for an approved alteration. Further the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the works constituted alterations.
11. The Appellant did not challenge the quantum of the assessment.
12. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant's supplies in connection with Chatsworth House were not approved alterations within the meaning of item 2 group 6 schedule 8 of the VAT Act 1994. The Tribunal holds that the Appellant's supplies were standard rated for VAT purposes. The Tribunal dismisses the Appeal and upholds the assessment dated 14 November 2007 in the sum of £9,939.00.

MICHAEL TILDESLEY OBE

TRIBUNAL JUDGE

RELEASE DATE: 13 July 2009

MAN/

Notes

13. A party wishing to Appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal must seek permission by making an application in writing to the Tribunal within 56 days of being provided with full written reasons for the decision. An application for permission must identify the alleged error(s) in the decision and state the result the party making the application is seeking.