Tag Archives: VAT-DIY

VAT: DIY Housebuilder Scheme updated

By Marcus Ward 16 April 2024

HMRC has updated its guidance for DIY Housebuilders.

The scheme enables people who build, or convert properties into dwellings for their own use to recover VAT incurred on the project.

VAT: Changes to the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme

By Marcus Ward 20 November 2023

The DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme is a tax refund mechanism for people who build, or arrange to have built, a house they intend to live in. It also applies to converting commercial property into a house(s). This puts a person who constructs their own home on equal footing with commercial housebuilders. There is no need to be VAT registered in order to make the claim.

The Scheme can be complex, but here is our Top Ten Tips for claimants.

The Changes

From 5 December 2023, the follow changes apply:

claimants will be allowed to submit claims electronically
the deadline for making claims will be extended to six months (from three)
the list of documents required to support a claim has been amended
a new requirement for additional evidence when a derelict building has been converted into dwelling(s) – to be made on a specific form

These changes are set out in The Value Added Tax (Refunds to “Do-It-Yourself” Builders) (Amendment of Method and Time for Making Claims) Regulations 2023 and guidance is provided by HMRC here.

The new deadline applies to claims made on, or after 5 December 2023. The deadline, broadly, begins when a dwelling is complete. There is sometimes a dispute on the completion date, so this case and commentary may be of assistance.

VAT: Difficulties with DIY Housebuilders’ claim – The Spani case

By Marcus Ward 18 September 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Spani v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 00727 (TC) the issue was whether a claim under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme (the scheme) was valid.

Mr Spani appealed against HMRC’s decision to refuse a claim. It was rejected as the respondents concluded that the property was to be used for business purposes because Planning Permission was for a holiday let rather than residential own use. To claim under the scheme, the relevant the property must be used “otherwise than in the course of furtherance of business” – VAT Act 1994, section 35)

Background

The cottage was constructed in Seaford – within the Souths Down National Park and, in order to obtain planning consent, it was required to be made available for letting on a commercial basis for 140 days a year. The appellant contended that it was his primary residence in the UK and any letting (which was interrupted by covid in any case) was/would be incidental to this primary purpose.

The property was listed on Air BnB in order to satisfy the requirements of the planning consent, but the property had not been actively marketed and no lettings had taken place.

Mr Spani contended that the use of the cottage “falls far short of the HMRC’s position that it was the appellant’s intention to use the property for a wholly commercial purpose”. It was simply the appellant’s home in the UK and that an identical property built outside the National Park would not have the Planning Permission holiday let requirement.

Further, if it was a commercial enterprise, Mr Spani could have could have used another reclaim route, viz: registering for VAT and recovering an element of the input tax incurred.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed – The judge opined that “none of these events subsequent to the grant of the Planning Permission and completion certificate detract from the fact that the property was built to be a holiday let (as stipulated by the planning consent) and was therefore constructed in furtherance of a FHL* business”.

Additionally, the FTT stated that: it is plain that the appellant’s plan to live in the property within the FHL regulations does not (and cannot) alter the property into a dwelling… when there is the express prohibition placed on the property to be a dwelling.

The conclusion was that the property was built in furtherance of a business which prohibited a claim.

Commentary

Yet another case highlighting precise requirements of a claim under the scheme and HMRC’s strict application of the rules. Care must always be taken in such cases and we advise professional advice is sought prior to a submission of a claim.

More on similar cases here and here and Top Ten Tips for the scheme.

* Furnished Holiday Let

VAT: Roof panels are not insulation. The Greenspace case

By Marcus Ward 2 December 2021

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Greenspace Limited the issue was whether insulated roof panels were “energy-saving materials” per VAT Act 1994, sect 29A, Schedule 7A, group 2, items 1 and 2 and thus liable at the reduced rate of 5%. Or rather at the standard rate of 20% on the basis that they were a supply of a roof itself.

Background

The appellant supplied and installed roof panels for conservatories which comprised a layer of close-cell extruded polystyrene foam (Styrofoam) around 71mm thick. The Styrofoam was covered with a thin aluminium layer and a protective powder coating which are together around 2mm thick. The supplies were made to residential customers and the panels were fitted onto their pre-existing conservatory roofs. The Panels were slotted into place on the existing roof structure and Greenspace did not replace its customers’ existing roof framework when doing this; the struts and glazing bars that supported the previous glass or polycarbonate panels were left in place. Consequently, the Panels were not self-supporting and could only be used if the customer already had an existing conservatory roof structure.

The decision

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided in 2020 that the panels were not “insulation for a roof” but were a new roof in their own right, and that the appellant’s supplies did not therefore qualify for the reduced rate of VAT (unlike insulation that could be separately attached to a roof, the panels actually formed the roof).

The UT dismissed the new appeal and found that the FTT had not been obliged to compare the roof after Greenspace had installed its panels to the original roof. The frame that was retained could not itself be described as a roof, and the provision of the Thermotec panels which made the conservatory weatherproof as well as insulating it could properly be categorised as the provision of a new roof.

One of Greenspace’s grounds of appeal was that the FTT decision was vitiated by the assumption that because the panels took the form of roof coverings, they were necessarily incapable of constituting “insulation for … roofs”. The appellant argued that as this was a flawed assumption (that Greenspace’s supplies “must” be treated as something more than insulation) the decision should be set aside. This contention was rejected by the UT judge.

Commentary

A fine distinction is often required to be made to establish the correct VAT treatment of a supply. In this case a degree of semantics was required to determine whether the panels were energy-saving materials (even when they certainly saved energy). On such small things turned the assessment of £2.6 million here. It always pays to double check VAT treatments rather than making assumptions.