The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Longridge on the Thames
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] UKUT 0504 (TCC) |
| Appellant | |
| Respondent | |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Appeal Number | FTC/52/2013 |
[2014] UKUT 0504 (TCC)
Appeal number: FTC/52/2013
VAT – whether building intended for use solely for a relevant charitable
purpose – charity with objects of educating young people in water borne activities
– construction of training centre – whether construction services zero-rated
– whether charity carrying on a business/economic activity – Section 30 and items 2
and 4 of Group 5 of Schedule 8 to VATA 1994 – Note (6) to Group 5
UPPER TRIBUNAL
(TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER)
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Appellants
- and –
LONGRIDGE ON THE THAMES
Respondent
TRIBUNAL:
MRS JUSTICE ROSE
Sitting in public at The Rolls Building, London EC4A 1NL on 14 and 15 October
2014
Michael Jones instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue
and Customs for the Appellants
Roger Thomas QC instructed for the Respondent
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2014
DECISION
1. This is an appeal by HMRC against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax
Chamber) dated 28 February 2013 ([2013] UKFTT 158 (TC)) (‘the Decision’). The 5 issue raised by the appeal is whether construction services supplied to the Respondent
(‘Longridge’) should be zero-rated for VAT purposes because those construction
services related to supplies for a building that was intended for use solely for relevant
charitable purposes. The Commissioners decided in November 2011 that the supplies
were not zero-rated. The First-tier Tribunal (Judge Edward Sadler and Mr Nigel 10 Collard) allowed an appeal against that decision. The VAT in issue is about
£135,000.
2. The facts are set out in detail in the Decision at paragraphs 24 onwards.
Longridge is a company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital. It is a
registered charity. The objects of Longridge include: 15
(1) To safeguard and promote Longridge as a centre of excellence for the
advancement of education in water, outdoor and indoor activities for young
people generally, and for purposes related thereto such as coaching, leadership
and training in water and other activities; and
20 (2) To promote the development of young people in achieving their full
physical, intellectual, social and spiritual potential as individuals, as responsible
citizens and as members of their local, national and international communities.
3. The FTT heard evidence from two witnesses on behalf of Longridge, Miss 25 Foister who is the chief executive officer of the charity and Mr Julian Fulbrook who
is a trustee of Longridge and has acted as a volunteer canoe and aquatic first aid
instructor there for many years. The Tribunal accepted their evidence.
4. The Longridge site is on the banks of the River Thames near Marlow in
Buckinghamshire. It used to operate as a boating centre for The Scout Association. In 30 2004 the three Scout counties involved at Longridge decided they could no longer
provide oversight for the premises. The site was transferred to a new charitable trust
in September 2005. On the site there are areas for campsites; a games field; a ropes
course, climbing wall and “Jacob’s ladder”; an area for go-karting; a “giant swing”;
waterfront landing stages; and buildings for storing craft and equipment for the 35 various water-based activities provided. There is a building which provides overnight
accommodation for young people’s groups visiting the site and taking courses
provided by the Longridge. There is also a youth club, a reception area and a cafe.
5. When Longridge took over the site in 2005, it was apparent that the facilities
there were in need of an extensive upgrade. The VAT at the centre of this dispute was 40 incurred on the construction of a training centre at the site. The training centre
includes toilets, shower rooms and changing rooms on the ground floor and meeting
room facilities on the upper floor. The cost of building the training centre was, the
To continue reading
Request your trial