Gateshead Talmudical College v HMRC: Upper Tribunal rules on Capital Goods Scheme

Anneliese Blackwood

In one of Sir Stephen Oliver’s last decisions the Upper Tribunal has for the first time dealt definitively with the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) under the VAT Regulations SI 1995/2518.

Facts of the case

Gateshead Talmudical College (Gateshead) was a Yeshiva which provided educational services and the services it supplied were exempt for VAT purposes. On 1 November 1996 Gateshead granted a lease of its premises (the Lease) to Starburst Properties Ltd (Starburst) which then on the same day granted a sublease of the premises back to Gateshead (the Sublease).

Gateshead registered for VAT describing its business as property letting and both Gateshead and Starburst opted to tax the premises in accordance with VATA 1994 Sch 10. Construction work was done...

If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:

If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:

Subscribe Now...

Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.

Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.

Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.

In one of Sir Stephen Oliver’s last decisions the Upper Tribunal has for the first time dealt definitively with the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) under the VAT Regulations SI 1995/2518.

Facts of the case

Gateshead registered for VAT describing its business as property letting and both Gateshead and Starburst opted to tax the premises in accordance with VATA 1994 Sch 10. Construction work was done...

If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:

If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes: