A new library had been built for the college. A company owned by the college took a lease of it from the college, and reclaimed the input tax paid on construction. The company managed the library.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal failed. The question was whether the college was in occupation of the library, either alone or together with the company. The Act could not be read as desired by the Revenue to include in the idea of occupation, any occupation of whatever nature.
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2008] 2 All ER 863, [2008] 16 EG 152, [2008] BTC 5330, [2008] STC 1225, [2008] STI 1231, [2008] BVC 452, [2008] NPC 45, [2008] 1 WLR 888, [2008] UKHL 23, Times 17-Apr-2008
Bailii, HL
Value Added Tax Act 1994, Finance Act 1997 37
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Newnham College Cambridge v Revenue and Customs CA 24-Mar-2006
The College had decided to demolish and rebuild its library. It elected to waive exemption to VAT so as to recover the VAT on its rebuilding costs. It had set up and funded an independent company to carry out the works, granting it a lease of the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Waterside Escapes Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 13-Oct-2020
Qualifying Property Rental – Stamp Duty Relief
SDLT – higher threshold interest 15% rate – relief for a qualifying property rental business – intention that a non-qualifying individual be permitted to occupy a dwelling on the land (paragraph 5(2), Schedule 4A, FA 2003) – whether a non-qualifying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
VAT, Construction
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.266935