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 designed as a building. Appeal dismissed.
Potter, Chadwick LJJ, Black J
Times 15-May-2003, Gazette 12-Jun-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 493, [2003] STC 669, [2003] BVC 415, [2003] 20 EG 148, [2003] BTC 5359
[2003] STI 587
Bailii
Value Added Tax Act 1994 35(1D) SCh8 Grp 5 Note 2
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appealed toCommissioners of Customs and Excise v Blom-Cooper ChD 12-Jul-2002
The tax payer had converted a building which had had both residential and business uses into residential use, and sought to reclaim the input tax on that part of the expenditure attributable to the residential part. The Commissioners appealed.
CitedRevenue and Customs v Jacobs CA 22-Jul-2005
The taxpayer had converted a former residentional boarding school into a substantial private residence. He had sought to claim over andpound;300,000 VAT inputs. The Commissioners appealed the finding that he was so entitled.
Held: ‘works . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 May 2021; Ref: scu.182402