18670

ZERO-RATING – new Church gates and widened path enabling vehicular access to the door of the church – whether “widening doorways for the purpose of facilitating a handicapped person’s entry to” the Church – no 

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

	RICHARD JOHNSEN 
	CHAIRMAN, SHALDEN MILLENIUM COMMITTEE	Appellant

	- and -

	THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE	Respondents

			Tribunal:	DR JOHN F AVERY JONES CBE (Chairman)
					RANBIR SINGH SURI

Sitting in public in London on 15 November 2002

Richard Johnsen, Chairman of the Shalden Millenium Committee, for the Appellant

Nicola Shaw, counsel, instructed by the Solicitor for the Cstoms and Excise for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2002

DECISION

1.	This is an appeal by Mr Richard Johnsen as chairman of the Shalden Millenium Committee against a decision contined in letters dated 16 October 2000, 19 February 2001, 4 April 2001 and 12 June 2001 that certain works were not zero-rated.  The Appellant appeared in person, and the Commissioners were represented by Miss Nicola Shaw.
2.	The work in question was carried out to enable vehicles to reach the door of the Church of St Peter and St Paul, Shalden, near Alton, Hampshire.  Previously it was necessary to walk 300 yards from the road.  The work consisted of new gates and a widened access path.  The works allow disabled people to be driven to the door of the Church.  Other cars are not allowed, although we presume hearses and wedding cars are also allowed to drive in.
3.	The previous gates were smaller and allowed wheelchair access for disable people only.  The path was widened and gravelled, allowing vehicular access.  It is still possible to have wheelchair access but with difficulty because of the slope up to the Church.  The works comprised new stone pillars to which wooden gates are attached on each side opening from the middle.  There are invoices relating to “supply and deliver Portland components as quotation”,  “supply only, pair of oak gates as estimate; supply only, 2 No. short oak posts”, “oak post and two rail fencing erect wither side of pillars and take down and remove old fencing”, and “to supply all gate parts all as instructed…”.  In a letter the Appellant said that “much of the work was carried out on a charitable basis at no cost and therefore VAT free”.  
4.	The Appellant claims that zero-rating applies by virtue of items 9 and 13 read with item 8 of Group 12 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994:
“8. The supply to a handicapped person of a service of constructing ramps or widening doorways or passages for the purpose of facilitating his entry to or movement within his private residence.
9. The supply to a charity of a service described in item 8 for the purpose of facilitating a handicapped person’s entry to or movement within any building.
13. The supply of goods in connection with a supply described in items 8, 9, 10 or 11.”
5.	It is common ground that the Church is a charity and the supply is made to the Appellant as part of the Church.  Mr Johnsen contends that the new gates qualify as “widening doorways…for the purpose of facilitating a handicapped person’s entry to” the Church.  He points to paragraph 27(b) of Notice 701/7/94: “This relief…extends to work on any building where the charity wishes to make access or movement easier for disabled people.”  Miss Shaw for the Commissioners contends that the Church gates are not a doorway; that they do not facilitate entry to the Church but to a path leading to the Church; and that the purpose of the works were not for the purpose of facilitating a handicapped person’s entry, meaning the primary purpose, as was held to be required in RNIB Properties Limited v Customs and Excise Comrs (1998) VAT Decision No.15,748 in another context referring to “the supply to a charity, for the purpose of raising money …”.  In addition they contend that because the services (other than in relating to the fencing) were carried out voluntarily item 13 is not satisfied as the goods were not supplied in connection with any supply of services, since a supply of services otherwise for consideration is not a supply for VAT purposes.
6.	Applying the ordinary meaning of the words in the zero-rating provision we agree with the Commissioners.  The gates on the road are not doorways.  They do not facilitate entry to the Church because in the context of “entry to or movement within any building” they imply entry into the building itself.  We think that the quotation from Notice 701/7/94 is correct in referring to “work on any building where the charity wishes to make access or movement easier for disabled people.”  We are also not satisfied that the “the”, meaning primary, purpose was to facilitate entry by handicapped persons, although undoubtedly it was “a” purpose.  The works facilitated entry by vehicles generally.  We are also not satisfied that any services were supplied for a consideration except the erection of fencing and removal of the old fencing as mentioned in the invoices.  We do not think that an invoice to “supply and deliver Portland components” and “supply only, pair of oak gates as estimate; supply only, 2 No. short oak posts” included their installation which we presume was done on a charitable basis as stated in the letter.  While it is odd that zero-rating for goods can only be obtained in connection with a supply of services provided voluntarily, that it what the legislation says.
7.	While we have sympathy for the Appellant in that the works obviously do make it possible for handicapped persons to reach the Church, we regret that the zero-rating provisions are tightly drawn and in our view do not extend to these works.
8.	Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

J F AVERY JONES

CHAIRMAN
RELEASE 24/05/2004

LON/01/759