Michael Roy Culverwell v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Decision date: 22 October 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 276 (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 appellant sought repayment from HMRC of £826.16 VAT charged by suppliers on windows and doors for a new dwelling under the DIY builders' refund scheme. The Tribunal found the supplies should have been zero-rated, so no VAT was chargeable, and that the DIY refund provisions do not entitle the appellant to recover VAT erroneously charged by suppliers from HMRC. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant's remedy was held to be a civil claim against the suppliers.
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 supply is zero-rated no VAT is chargeable and the DIY builders' refund provisions (Schedule 8 Group 5 and s.35 VATA 1994) do not permit recovery from HMRC of VAT a supplier has charged in error; correction of such errors is a matter between the customer and the supplier.
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 judgment refers to prior tribunal decisions indicating appellants should pursue suppliers for erroneously charged VAT and observes that supplier issues such as time-bar or insolvency do not, in the reported material, establish a remedy against HMRC; these points are treated as persuasive context rather than novel binding propositions.