VAT —  ZERO-RATING — construction of  wall by non-registered individual claimed to be approved alteration of protected building qualifying for zero-rating — finding that supplies of materials made to appellant’s son — appeal dismissed.
VAT — zero-rating — construction  of wall —supplier of materials made no supply of services — tax on materials therefore outside terms of recovery in item 2 Group 6 Schedule 8 VATA 1994

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

 
 	
	 ROGER BARUGH	Appellant

	- and -

	THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE	Respondents

				Tribunal: 	Mr J D Demack	 (Chairman)
						Mr A E Brown FCA	

Sitting in public in York on 14 July 2004
The Appellant in person

Mr Nicholas Mason of Counsel instructed by the Solicitors office of HM Customs and Excise for the Respondents

	© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004

DECISION
1.	Mr Roger Barugh, the appellant, is a private individual and is not registered for VAT.  He claims to be entitled to repayment of VAT totalling £1,073.04 paid on the supply of materials in the form of bricks, capping stones and iron railings used to build a wall within the curtilage of his dwellinghouse -  a listed building.  The wall in question is not attached to the dwelling.
2.	Mr Mark Barugh, the appellant’s son, made the claim pursued by his father by letter of 30 September 2003.  The Commissioners of Customs and Excise rejected it on 3 October 2003 for the following reasons:
“ 1)     the wall is not attached to the dwelling, and, is not within the provisions for relief from VAT; and
2)	the materials were supplied, but not fitted, by the suppliers: they were supplied to Mark Barugh for private use, and thus the VAT charged could not be reclaimed. “ 
3)	We pointed out to Mr Roger Barugh that the invoices on which his claim was based were all addressed to his son, and not to him.  He confirmed that his son had bought the materials in question and had paid for them.   Mr Barugh claimed that his son had acted as his agent in the purchases, but adduced no evidence in support. We are not satisfied that his son did so act, and find that the materials were supplied to Mr Mark Barugh, and not to Mr Roger Barugh.  Consequently Mr Roger Barugh cannot be entitled to recover the VAT charged on the materials, and we dismiss his appeal.
4)	But even had the supplies been made to Mr Roger Barugh, his appeal cannot succeed. His claim is for repayment of VAT on materials, i.e. goods, supplied and used by him to build the wall.  Group 6 of Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 zero rates at items 2 and 3:
“2.  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.
 3. 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”.  (Our emphasis)
5)	We need not consider whether construction of the wall was an approved alteration of a protected building for, as  none of the suppliers of materials supplied any services to Mr Barugh, the VAT on the materials cannot be reclaimed.

David Demack
Chairman
Release Date:
MAN/03/759