<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (2) TMI 670 - HOUSE OF LORDS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162485</link>
    <description>VAT zero-rating for works to a protected building applied only where the building actually altered itself satisfied the statutory definition, including the dwelling requirement. Works carried out to an outbuilding within the curtilage of a listed house did not qualify merely because planning law treated that structure as part of the listed building for control purposes. The VAT provisions were construed by their own wording and structure, and the curtilage fiction did not extend to treating separate works on the outbuilding as an approved alteration of the protected building. The disputed works were therefore outside item 2 of Group 6 in Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:52:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347428" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 670 - HOUSE OF LORDS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162485</link>
      <description>VAT zero-rating for works to a protected building applied only where the building actually altered itself satisfied the statutory definition, including the dwelling requirement. Works carried out to an outbuilding within the curtilage of a listed house did not qualify merely because planning law treated that structure as part of the listed building for control purposes. The VAT provisions were construed by their own wording and structure, and the curtilage fiction did not extend to treating separate works on the outbuilding as an approved alteration of the protected building. The disputed works were therefore outside item 2 of Group 6 in Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162485</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>