Rachel Maddock v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 23 October 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1477 (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 whether works replacing a bungalow with a larger two‑storey house qualified as "construction of a building" under s35(1A)(a) VATA or were excluded as conversion/reconstruction/alteration of an existing building under Note 16 to Schedule 8. The Tribunal found the approved plans retained multiple substantial parts of the original bungalow above ground level, so Note 18(b)'s single‑façade limit was not met and the works amounted to reconstruction/alteration within Note 16. The claimant's VAT refund was disallowed and the appeal 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

The Tribunal held that Note 18(b) must be applied so that retention of no more than a single façade (or double façade on a corner site) is a real limiting condition: retention of other substantial parts of the pre‑existing building cannot be used to circumvent that limit. The Tribunal also found that where planning permission requires works to be carried out in accordance with specified plans, retention shown on those plans can amount to a condition or requirement of the consent for the purposes of Note 18(b).

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 expressly left open the precise meaning of "corner site" in Note 18(b). It also expressed doubt (without deciding) about HMRC's entitlement to inspect individual invoices if a claim were otherwise held eligible.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML