Sean Harrison-Devereux v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 14 June 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 267 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

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: medium

This appeal concerned a refusal by HMRC to refund £4,374.67 VAT charged on four invoices from the Appellant's later contractor, R A Berry & Son Ltd, for completion works to a self‑built house. The tribunal found the invoices related to construction of a patio, driveway and drainage and thus were supplies of services (albeit incorporating materials) which should have been zero‑rated, so no repayable VAT arose to the houseowner. The Commissioners' refusal of repayment was upheld, the appeal dismissed and no costs ordered.

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: medium

Where an invoice charges for the construction of works (patio, driveway, drainage) even if materials are itemised, the supply may be characterised as a supply of services rather than a supply of goods for the purposes of the DIY House Builders' Scheme; materials incorporated in such a service are treated by zero‑rating rather than by repayment to the houseowner under the goods provision.

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 expressed sympathy for the parties and noted that a supplier's inability to amend a VAT account because of statutory time limits is a matter between the supplier and HMRC and beyond the tribunal's power. The tribunal also observed some factual confusion in HMRC's internal correspondence about the reason for refusal, but treated that as not determinative.

Warning

- The chunk contains substantial repetition of the same passage.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML