Market leading insight for tax experts
View online issue

HMRC v R Burton

In HMRC v R Burton [2016] UKUT 20 (21 January 2016) the UT found that a planning consent contained a condition that imposed a prohibition of separate use so that no refund was due under VATA 1994 s 35.

A planning consent for the redevelopment of a building contained the following condition: ‘the occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed or last employed in Park Hall Lake Fishery or a widow or widower of such a person or any resident dependants’. The FTT had held that the building was ‘designed as a dwelling’ within the meaning of VATA 1994 s 35 and Sch 8 group 5 note 2(c) as its ‘separate use or disposal’ was not prohibited by the planning consent.

The UT referred to Shields [2014] UKUT 453 as authority for the proposition that ‘a condition of planning...

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

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

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 '' for further assistance.