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 attracted the same exemption as the main building. There appeared no proper reason to treat the outbuilding as a separate building.
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Tuckey and Lord Justice Rix
Times 29-May-2002, Gazette 27-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 692, [2002] STC 829
Bailii
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 1(5), Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch 8 Grp 6
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromZielinski 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 . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromHer 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 January 2021; Ref: scu.171305