Nissi N Nissi Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 6 February 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 234 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether HMRC validly disapplied the Appellant's option to tax for 51–53 Tower Bridge Road, reversing VAT repayments totalling £606,164. The Tribunal found that Smart Start Nursery Ltd (SSN) had provided finance with the intention/expectation that the property would be used for exempt nursery services, so SSN was a "development financier" and the exempt-land test in Schedule 10 paragraph 12 was met. Consequently the supply was not taxable, the Appellant could not recover the input tax, and the assessments were upheld.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The Tribunal held that where a putative occupier who will make non‑taxable supplies provides finance towards acquisition/development with the intention or expectation that the land will be used for those exempt supplies, that occupier can be a "development financier" under paragraph 14 of Schedule 10 VATA; that status activates paragraph 12 to disapply an option to tax so the supply is not taxable. The Tribunal assessed such intention/expectation by reference to contemporaneous documents and the commercial reality of fund flows.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The decision noted (obiter) that the quantum of a contribution is a relevant factual consideration and that the phrase "or any part" in paragraph 14(3) does not exclude small contributions from being material to intention. It also suggested paras 14 and 15 should be read so that paragraph 14 looks prospectively at the putative development financier's position while paragraph 15 addresses the actual state of occupation.