Daniel Dunne v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 26 January 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 88 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

Mr Dunne sought a VAT refund under s35 for works described as a single‑storey rear extension which became physically detached and occupied as a bungalow. HMRC refused on the basis the works were an extension, not construction of a new dwelling; the Tribunal found the planning permission, even after an informal amendment removing a corridor, remained permission for an extension and not for a new dwelling, and dismissed the appeal.

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 creating a physically standalone structure does not qualify for s35 VAT relief unless there is statutory planning permission for a dwelling and the construction is carried out in accordance with that consent; informal amendments or post‑completion/local authority correspondence that remove a corridor did not convert permission for an extension into permission for a new dwelling.

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 Tribunal noted (obiter) that separate postal address and occupation of the completed unit do not, by themselves, establish that planning permission for a separate dwelling was granted, and that agreement with building control or practical necessity for on‑site changes does not substitute for formal planning consent.

Warning

This chunk contains duplicated and repetitive text; findings are repeated within the material. chunk contains duplicated and repetitive material; notes may be incomplete.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML