PJ Thory Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, TC 05317
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Rachel MAINWARING-TAYLOR |
| Judgment Date | 11 August 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] UKFTT 0568 (TC) |
| Respondent | The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs |
| Appellant | PJ Thory Limited |
| Reference | TC 05317 |
| Court | First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
[2016] UKFTT 0568 (TC)
TC05317
Appeal number: TC/2014/01856
AGGREGATES LEVY – relief from - section 17(3)(c) Finance Act 2001
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
P J THORY LIMITED Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S Respondents
REVENUE & CUSTOMS
TRIBUNAL:
Judge Rachel Mainwaring-Taylor
Ms Amanda Darley
Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice on 30th September 2015
Mr Adam Rycroft of KPMG for the Appellant
Mr James Pursey of Counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to
HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2016
2
DECISION
Background
1. By letter dated 19th April 2013, the Appellant submitted a claim (‘the Claim’) to 5 the Respondents (‘HMRC’) for repayment of aggregates levy (‘AGL’) that HMRC
held was due in respect of aggregate material (‘the Aggregate’) arising from the
construction of the Lilford Marina project site (‘the Marina’). The Claim was in the
sum of £171,379.32 and related to AGL for the period 1st July 2011 to 31st December
2012 inclusive. 10
2. The Claim was for exemption from AGL under section 17(3)(c) of the Finance
Act 2001 (‘section 17(3)(c)’).
3. Following a series of correspondence between the parties, HMRC, by a letter
dated 4th September 2013 (‘the Contested Decision’), rejected the Appellant’s Claim
on the grounds that neither of the conditions for exemption was met. 15
4. Following a review, HMRC upheld the Contested Decision by letter dated 7th
March 2014.
5. By assessment dated 17th March 2014 the Appellant was assessed in respect of
aggregate declared as exempt on its returns for periods 03/13 to 12/13 in the sum of
£289,237. Further assessments were issued on 10th June 2014 (period to 03/14 - 20 £58,655), 13th August 2014 (period to 06/14 - £62,697) and 11th December 2014
(period to 09/14 - £36,159). These further assessments are not part of the appeal, but
will be dealt with following the outcome of the appeal.
6. The Appellant extracted the Aggregate from a site which previously consisted of
open fields and a river inlet. The site was adjacent to the River Nene in 25 Northamptonshire. The river inlet, referred to as the ‘dogleg’, was accessed via a
channel from the main River Nene. The Aggregate was extracted in the course of the
creation of the Marina. The Marina will be used for the mooring of pleasure boats.
The completed Marina will have open access to the River Nene.
Evidence and agreed facts 30
7. The following evidence was introduced:
(1) The Witness Statement of Mr Samuel Wightman Cowan, incorporating
various documents including plans and photographs of the site, was admitted as
evidence, undisputed by HMRC (except as to what was said at meetings
between Mr Cowan and visiting officers of HMRC, at paragraphs 23 to 28, 35 which both parties agree to be irrelevant to the outcome of this appeal).
(2) Correspondence between the Appellant/KPMG and HMRC during the
period 19th April 2013 to 7th March 2014 (‘the Correspondence’).
To continue reading
Request your trial