In HMRC v Colaingrove (FTC/20/2013 – 21 March 2014) the UT allowed HMRC’s appeal in part. The appeal turned on the identification of which contents of a static caravan were zero-rated (VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 9).
The FTT had set out a twofold test: does the removal of the item still leave a habitable caravan; and how easily can the item be removed?
The UT considered that the test set out by the FTT was wrong. Referring to University of Kent (2004 – 18625) the UT insisted that the legislation does not introduce a ‘fitness for habitation test’. Furthermore the use of the word ‘removable’ simply confirms the distinction between the container and the content. Therefore carpets ovens settees etc are removable as they have been incorporated into the shell of the caravan and can therefore be...
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:
In HMRC v Colaingrove (FTC/20/2013 – 21 March 2014) the UT allowed HMRC’s appeal in part. The appeal turned on the identification of which contents of a static caravan were zero-rated (VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 9).
The FTT had set out a twofold test: does the removal of the item still leave a habitable caravan; and how easily can the item be removed?
The UT considered that the test set out by the FTT was wrong. Referring to University of Kent (2004 – 18625) the UT insisted that the legislation does not introduce a ‘fitness for habitation test’. Furthermore the use of the word ‘removable’ simply confirms the distinction between the container and the content. Therefore carpets ovens settees etc are removable as they have been incorporated into the shell of the caravan and can therefore be...
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:
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")