Search Results for: Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch 8 Grp 6

Click the case name for better results:

Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Zielinski Baker and Partners Limited: HL 26 Feb 2004

The commissioners sought to charge to VAT charges for works which had been carried out to a building within the curtilage of a listed building. The taxpayer sought zero-rating. Held: The outbuilding to which alterations were made must have been a ‘protected building’. Note (1) defines a protected building as both ‘a building which is … Continue reading Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Zielinski Baker and Partners Limited: HL 26 Feb 2004

Zielinski Baker and Partners Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 12 May 2002

Taxpayers sought exemption from VAT for works to a building. The commissioners claimed that the main building was not a dwelling, and that therefore the outbuilding would not be exempt. Held: The main building was listed, and the outbuilding was with in the curtilage as defined in the 1990 Act. Works to the outbuilding therefore … Continue reading Zielinski Baker and Partners Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 12 May 2002

Zielinski Baker and Partners Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: 2001

‘Note (1)(a) of Group 6 provides that an essential feature of a protected building is that it is a listed building ‘within the meaning of’ the 1990 Act. A listed building ‘within the meaning of’ the 1990 Act is a building which falls within the extended definition in section 1(5) of the 1990 Act.’ Judges: … Continue reading Zielinski Baker and Partners Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: 2001

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Blom-Cooper: CA 4 Apr 2003

The taxpayer appealed a decision that a conversion of a non-residential part of a building used for business and residential purposes was not exempt from VAT. Held: The building was not within the definition of a self contained residential building. If separate parts could be buildings, no part would satisfy the definition of a building … Continue reading Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Blom-Cooper: CA 4 Apr 2003

Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra v Revenue and Customs: CA 9 Oct 2006

The Orchestra apealed a finding that it was not entitled to exemption from VAT as a supply by an eligible body of a cultural performance. The taxpayer’s board was voluntary, but the management was employed. Held: The appeal failed. In order to decide whether the condition allowing exemption was satisfied, the court had to identify … Continue reading Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra v Revenue and Customs: CA 9 Oct 2006

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Institute of Directors, BAA Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 11 Dec 2002

The court examined arrangements whereby organisations which were not banks, endorsed credit cards to be issued by banks to their members. Held: The granting of credit was exempt from VAT, and also were exempted negotiations of credit and the provision of intermediary services. It was wrong to seek to characterise the arrangement as the mere … Continue reading Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Institute of Directors, BAA Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 11 Dec 2002

Colaingrove Limited v The Commissioners for Customs and Excise: ChD 16 Apr 2003

The Directive exempted from a charge to VAT for letting of imoveable property. The taxpayer challenged the requirement to charge to VAT his business of leasing pitches for caravans. Held: The directive allowed member states to derogate from the exemptions. That is what the UK had done. Judges: The Honourable Mr Justice Jacob Citations: [2003] … Continue reading Colaingrove Limited v The Commissioners for Customs and Excise: ChD 16 Apr 2003

Colaingrove Ltd v the Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 19 Feb 2004

The taxpayer licensed static caravans on seasonal pitches on its land. They claimed exemption from charging VAT on the basis that they were residential lettings exempt under European legislation. Held: The appeal failed. The legislation exempted the purchase of static caravans, but explicilty not ‘the supply of accomodation in a caravan or houseboat.’ There was … Continue reading Colaingrove Ltd v the Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 19 Feb 2004

Thamesdown Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 16 Dec 2005

VAT – Assessment – Whether supply of transport of passengers or making of arrangements for transport of passengers – Sch 8 Grp 8, Item 4 and Item 10 Value Added Tax Act 1994 – No – Agreement or undertaking to provide transport of passengers – Standard rated – Appeal dismissed Citations: [2005] UKVAT V19386 Links: … Continue reading Thamesdown Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 16 Dec 2005

Doctor Beynon and Partners v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 20 Dec 2002

The appellants were doctors practicing far from a pharmacy. They themselves administered rather than dispensed drugs direct to their clients under the regulation. They appealed a finding that the supplies were exempt supplies, asserting instead that they were zero-rated. The NHS refused to make an allowance against VAT paid on drugs supplied to regulation 20 … Continue reading Doctor Beynon and Partners v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 20 Dec 2002

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Leightons Ltd; Same v Eye-Tech Opticians: QBD 13 Apr 1995

Opticians supply of glasses and of eye tests are separate of goods and services. The dispensing and fitting of spectacles was a separate service from supply of spectacles. Citations: Times 13-Apr-1995, Ind Summary 30-May-1995 Statutes: Value Added Tax Act 1983 40(1), Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch 9 grp7 item 1 Jurisdiction: England and Wales … Continue reading Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Leightons Ltd; Same v Eye-Tech Opticians: QBD 13 Apr 1995