[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Seaton Parochiac Church Council v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18742 (26 August 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2004/V18742.html Cite as: [2004] UKVAT V18742

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

VALUE ADDED TAX — zero-rating —approved alteration to protected building — VAT A 1994 Sch 8 Group 6 items 2 and 3 —material supplied by manufacturer to appellant and installed by separate contractor —item 3 is applicable — zero-rating intractable — appeal dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

SEATON PAROCHIAL CHURCH COUNCIL Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Colin Bishopp (Chairman)

Mr J D Kippest (Member)

Sitting in public in Birmingham on 16 August 2004

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

Joanne Vicary, of counsel, instructed by the Solicitor's Office of HM Customs and Excise, for the respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION
2. The appellant Seaton Parochial Church Council is responsible for a Grade II listed church at Seaton, Rutland. In 2002 it arranged for the installation of a new heating system in the church. The issue between the parties in this appeal is whether the heaters should attract zero-rating.
3. In principle, the installation of the heating system could be zero-rated by virtue of Items 2 and 3, Group 6 of Schedule 8 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. Item 2 applies zero-rating to;

"The supply, in the course of an approved alteration of a protected building, of any services other than the services of an architect, surveyor or any person acting as consultant or in a supervisory capacity."

Item 3 applies zero-rating to

"The supply of building materials to a person to whom the supplier is supplying services within Item 2 of this Group which include the incorporation of the materials into the building (or its site) in question."

4. It is apparent from the documentation produced by the appellant that it bought the heaters from the manufacturer, and had them installed by a contractor. Consequently, while the contractor's services are zero-rated by Item 2, the conditions of Item 3 are not satisfied: the heaters were not supplied to the appellant by the installation contractor. There is no other provision of which the appellant might avail itself and, unfortunate though it undoubtedly is that by arranging its supply in this fashion is has deprived itself of the benefit of zero-rating the heaters, that is the inescapable consequence of the arrangement it has made.
5. It seems that the appellant has already recognised that the appeal must fail since its representative member informed the Tribunal in advance that it would not be represented at the hearing. Though we have some sympathy with the appellant, we are bound to dismiss the appeal. Joanne Vicary of counsel, who appeared for the respondents, did not seek a direction in respect of costs.

COLIN BISHOPP

CHAIRMAN

Release Date: 26 August 2004

MAN/04/0045