Mr David Sherratt and Mrs Elizabeth Sherratt v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 9 June 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 381 (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
The Sherratts appealed HMRC's refusal to refund £13,082.81 VAT on a self‑built farmhouse under the DIY builders scheme. The Tribunal found planning condition 10 (and condition 9 in reserved matters) prohibited separate sale, lease or disposal of the farmhouse apart from the remainder of the farm. Because Note 2(2)(c) was therefore not satisfied, the farmhouse did not qualify and the appeal was dismissed.
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
Where a planning condition expressly prevents a new dwelling being sold, leased or otherwise disposed of separately from the remainder of the premises, that prohibition engages Note 2(2)(c) of Group 5 Schedule 8 and defeats qualification under the DIY builders VAT refund provisions; a restriction requiring the dwelling to remain ancillary to the agricultural unit is sufficient to deny independent status.
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 observed that the absence of other buildings on the remainder of the premises does not prevent a planning prohibition on separate disposal from applying, and that planning permissions granted in "exceptional circumstances" to protect agricultural activity may properly include requirements that the whole unit be disposed of as one.
Warning
The chunk includes extensive repetition of passages and authorities; some paragraphs are duplicated. Notes provided contain duplicated passages and may be repetitious, though they supply the key factual and legal points used by the Tribunal.