John Price v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 9 December 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 634 (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

This appeal concerned a DIY housebuilder's claim for repayment of £774 VAT under s.35 VATA for various invoices arising in construction. The First-tier Tribunal held VAT was refundable only for goods that were VAT‑chargeable building materials actually incorporated in the dwelling; roller blinds met that test and £61.47 was refunded. The Tribunal dismissed claims for plastering, boiler commissioning and site/plant hire because those supplies were either services (not goods) or should have been zero‑rated (not VAT‑chargeable), so no refund under the DIY scheme. The remainder of the claim (£712.53) was refused.

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’s ratio is that the s.35 DIY refund regime permits repayment only where VAT was actually chargeable on goods of a description ordinarily incorporated by builders in a dwelling (Note 22, Group 5, Sch. 8) and not on supplies that are services or on supplies which were not properly VAT‑chargeable because they should have been zero‑rated.

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 indicated that HMRC guidance (Notice 719, VAT431NB) may be admissible as evidence of practice but does not determine statutory interpretation, and rejected the contention that a DIY builder is put in the same VAT position as a developer who can reclaim input tax.

Warning

quality:contains_crown_copyright

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML