Symonds
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1993 |
| Date | 01 January 1993 |
| Court | Value Added Tax Tribunal |
VAT Tribunal
Supply - Zero-rating - Building services - The appellant was a builder and had carried out building works for Mr S - Mr S desired to build a house and found a suitable plot of land with an existing house on it - He decided to retain the house and to have additional accommodation constructed alongside it as a first phase - As a second phase, work was done on the old house and the two were integrated - He applied for planning permission for the construction of what was obviously a new house incorporating an old house, altered to fit in with the new house - The first stage of planning permission described the project as a two-storey extension to the existing property - The second phase was described as a two-storey extension with internal alterations - In a letter to his local VAT office, Mr S described the work as being the construction of a new house which was attached to the wall of an existing property - Mr S attached plans to that letter which were a compilation showing the old property as it was before, and the new property as it would be after the works of integration - He relied on a telephone conversation supported by a note to indicate that they were the plans requested and none others - Customs replied to the letter confirming that on the basis of the facts as stated the work would be zero-rated - Based on his understanding that the new building would be zero-rated Mr S instructed the appellant to construct it - Mr S lived in the old house while the work of constructing the new house proceeded and on completion it was self-contained with no interconnecting door - At this point there were two separate houses, but Mr S then took on a different contractor so that the separate costs of the two phases were defined - He had work done on the old house and integrated by access the old with the new and charged VAT on this work - Customs raised an assessment for the earlier work on the basis that it was standard-rated - The appellant contended that there had been a misdirection by Customs which worked to the appellant's detriment - He further contended that the work had been wrongly classified as standard-rated for VAT whereas it was the construction of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whiteley
...798 McElroy VAT(1977) 1 BVC 1066 Samco Construction Ltd VAT(LON/88/1478) No. 4135; (1989) 4 BVC 1406 Symonds VAT(LON/90/1836) No. 9050; [1993] BVC 1354 Supply - Zero-rating - Construction of dwellings - Annexe and swimming pool constructed after completion of dwelling - Whether supply in co......
-
Strowbridge
...120 Samco Construction Ltd VATNo. 4135; (1989) 4 BVC 1406 Siraj t/a Europa Builders VATNo. 11,742; [1995] BVC 1398 Symonds VATNo. 9050; [1993] BVC 1354 Wimpey Group Services Ltd v C & E Commrs VAT(1987) 3 BVC 157 Zero-rating - Construction of building - Annexation to existing building - Nur......