Tax

J3 Building Solutions Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - ZERO-RATING : Building work)

[2016] UKFTT TC TC05087First-tier Tribunal (Tax)2016

Get the AI brief for this case

Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

VALUE ADDED TAX � zero-rating � construction of dwelling Group 5 Schedule 8 VATA � whether building was within Note 16 � no, Astral followed � appeal allowed.�

This was an appeal against a refusal by the Commissioners for Her Majesty�s� Revenue and Customs (�HMRC�) to allow construction work carried on by the appellant at 82, Moor Lane North, Gosforth, Newcastle-upon-Tyne (�the site�) to be zero-rated.� The VAT in issue was �40,069.00.

We had two bundles of documents, one from each party, containing among other things photographs and plans of the building and construction work carried on by the appellant at the site.� We had some oral evidence from Mr. Bryan Watson, the owner of the appellant and we were supplied by the appellant with a number of documents relating to the appellant�s applications for planning permission etc to carry out the works at the site, though not the planning consent itself.�

In view of this rather strange omission we informed the appellant that we might have taken the view that the appeal failed for lack of evidence on what might turn out to be a crucial point: however as neither the appellant�s owner nor Mr Jamieson was apparently a tax specialist we decided to issue directions after the hearing (�post-hearing directions�) with a strict time limit to enable the appellant to provide the planning permission and building plans which were discussed at the hearing and to enable any comments to be made on these documents that either party wished to make.

We add that, from reading the papers again after the hearing, we noted that the appellant had in fact supplied a copy of the planning consent to HMRC because they referred to having seen it when making their decision. It is possible then that the appellant expected HMRC to include the consent in the bundle it prepared and it seems then somewhat odd to us that HMRC did not include it, especially as in their Statement of Case they refer to it in support of their case.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Tax cases

Ferguson & Anor v Revenue and Customs (STAMP DUTY LAND TAX - residential property - whether paddock was part of garden or grounds of dwelling - paddock was part of grounds)

[2026] UKFTT TC 238

MWL International Ltd & Anor v Revenue and Customs (NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS - agreement with inspector of taxes that certain cars would be "pooled cars" for NICs purposes if various conditions satisfied - HMRC subsequently sought to collect NICs retrospectively - whether HMRC estopped from doing so - whether the FTT had jurisdiction to decide whether Appellants had legitimate expectation that decisions would not be retrospective)

[2026] UKUT TCC 62

BGC Services Holdings LLP v Revenue and Customs (Determinations under Reg 80 of the PAYE Regs - whether it appeared to HMRC that there may be tax payable)

[2026] UKFTT TC 558

Best Cosmetics Ltd v Revenue and Customs (IMPORT VAT - Postponed VAT Accounting - importer not VAT registered - post-clearance demand notices issued for unpaid VAT - no evidence that postponed VAT was accounted for)

[2026] UKFTT TC 236

Ivey v Revenue and Customs (Strike Out - Jurisdiction)

[2026] UKFTT TC 233

Revenue and Customs v Electric Mobility Euro Ltd & Anor (Discovery assessments - extended time limit assessments - penalty for inaccuracy in a return - deliberate inaccuracy - whether deliberate inaccuracy necessarily involves dishonesty - whether HMRC required to specifically plead and prove dishonesty - whether the FTT erred in failing to explain how the appellant's conduct might not involve dishonesty)

[2026] UKUT TCC 37

Common Room

Discussion

0 comments · About the Common Room →

No comments yet — start the discussion.

Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.

Tax