Michael James Watson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 22 October 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 526 (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 Mr Watson's claim for a VAT refund under the DIY Builders and Converters scheme for works completed in 2006 to create a separate dwelling. HMRC refused because the original planning permission included a condition prohibiting separate occupation and no planning consent operating at the time of construction authorised a dwelling. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the retrospective planning permission granted in January 2008 did not, and had not been made to, operate from a date before or at the time the works were carried out, so the statutory planning-consent requirement was not met.
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
For the purpose of the VAT refund provisions relied on, a building only qualifies as "designed as a dwelling" if, at the time the works were carried out, there existed statutory planning consent permitting the building as a dwelling and the works were carried out in accordance with that consent; a later retrospective planning permission does not satisfy that requirement unless the planning authority has expressly exercised its power to make that permission take effect from a date on or before the works.
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 commented that it is undesirable and potentially misleading for a local authority's planning and building-control functions to characterise the same works inconsistently, and that administrative sloppiness in decision notices and forms can cause hardship — observations reflecting policy and fairness concerns but not altering the statutory test applied.