Conroy
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 01 August 1985 |
| Date | 01 August 1985 |
| Court | Value Added Tax Tribunal |
VAT Tribunal
Assessment - Under-declaration of output tax - Trade for two months prior to registration - Did not charge customers tax, although claimed input tax on sales - Appellant's claim inequitable for the Commissioners to recover tax which had not been charged - Appellant's fault not registered in time - Appeal dismissed.
VAT Tribunal
Taxable supplies - Lift installed at Nursing Home for the chronically sick and disabled - Nursing Home run as a commercial enterprise - Whether lift "designed solely for use by a handicapped person" - schedule 5 group 14Value Added Tax Act 1983, Sch. 5, Grp. 14, item 2.
The appellant, as Matron of a commercially operated Nursing Home, with a staff of 35 full and part-time assistants, looked after 28 fee-paying residents. The appellant decided to install a lift in the home to enable the inmates on the first floor to get to and from the dining room, the lounge and the garden. An Alpha Senator lift was installed which consisted of a car in which passengers stood upright and which was raised or lowered in a shaft by an electric motor. The total price was £4,600 plus value added tax of £690, which amounts were paid by the appellant.
The appellant claimed that since the lift was installed for the personal use of the inmates, all of whom were chronically sick or disabled, it should not be chargeable to tax.
The Commissioners argued (1) that the Alpha Senator lift was not "designed solely for use by a handicapped person" so as to come within schedule 5 group 14Value Added Tax Act 1983, Sch. 5, Grp. 14, item 2, para. (g) to the Value Added Tax Act 1983 and (2) that the benefits of item 2 could only be claimed in relation to supplies of the specified goods to a handicapped person or to a charity making such specified goods available to handicapped persons.
Held, dismissing the taxpayer's appeal:
1. The test to be applied was whether the lift in this case was designed by the designer concerned in its manufacture specially for use by a handicapped person. It was clear that this lift had a wide range of applications in domestic homes, hotels and offices as well as homes for the handicapped, and was accordingly designed for general use as opposed to use specially by the disabled.
2. The supply in this case was made to the appellant who was herself neither a handicapped person nor a charity, and for this reason also the supply fell outside Grp. 14, item 2.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re a Ward of Court (withholding medical treatment) (No. 2)
... ... 927. In re B. (A Minor) (Wardship: Sterilisation) [1988] A.C. 199; [1987] 2 W.L.R. 1213; [1987] 2 All E.R. 206. Banco Ambrosiano s.p.a. v. Ansbacher & Co. Ltd. [1987] I.L.R.M. 669. In re Birch (1892) 29 L.R. Ir. 274. In re Conroy (1985) 98 N.J. 321; 486 A 2d 1209. Cruzan v. Director Missouri Department of Health (1990) 497 U.S. 261; 110 S. Ct. 2841. In re D. [1987] I.R. 449; [1988] I.L.R.M. 251. In re Fiori (1995) 652 A.R. 2d 1350. G. v. An Bord Uchtála [1980] ... ...
-
Re T (an Adult) (Consent to Medical Treatment)
...review the law in relation to the medical treatment of children (see Re "R." (A Minor) (Wardship: Consent to Treatment) [1992] Fam. 11 and In re "J." (C.A. transcript 10th July 1992)). These decisions have no application to adult patients. An adult patient who, like Miss T., suffers from no......