Lonie v Revenue & Customs [2006] UKVAT V19901 (21 November 2006) 

19901

VALUE ADDED TAX — zero-rating — equipment designed for handicapped persons — VATA 1994, s 30, Sch 8 Group 12 — chair with electrically operated reclining back rest — whether “designed solely for use by a handicapped person” — no — appeal dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

SYLVIA RUBY LONIE
Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER
MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents

Tribunal:	Colin Bishopp (Chairman)
Roland Presho

Sitting in public in North Shields on 14 November 2006

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented 
Charles Morgan, counsel, instructed by their Acting, Solicitor, for the Respondents.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2006

DECISION

1.	In this appeal, Mrs Sylvia Lonie challenges the Respondents’ refusal to agree that a chair bought for her by her husband should be subject to VAT at the zero rate rather than the standard rate. 
2.	Mrs Lonie did not appear at the hearing of the appeal, and was not represented. We did, however, have copies of copious correspondence from her or her husband, which we have considered. Within it was an intimation that it would be difficult for Mrs Lonie or her husband to attend a hearing, and, inferentially, an invitation to the tribunal to hear the appeal in their absence. We decided that it was appropriate for us to do so; if Mrs Lonie is aggrieved by this decision she may apply to the tribunal within 14 days of its release for a direction that it be set aside and the appeal heard again. The Respondents were represented before us by Charles Morgan of counsel. 
3.	It is clear from the correspondence that in late 2005 Mrs Lonie, who has a number of acute medical conditions, was an inpatient in hospital, recovering from surgical treatment. When the question of her discharge came to be considered, she and her husband were advised that they needed to acquire suitable chairs for her use at home. Mr Lonie bought two chairs from a local retailer who (he maintains) advised him that both should be zero-rated. Despite that advice, the retailer included VAT at the standard rate on its invoice, which Mr Lonie has paid. The two chairs were delivered, we believe in about February 2006, and Mrs Lonie was duly discharged from hospital. 
4.	We have no comprehensive specification, or pictures, of the chairs and must rely on the very limited description of them set out in the retailer’s invoice, on which Mr and Mrs Lonie have not expanded. One is described as a “lift and rise” chair, and the other as an “electric reclining chair”. Those descriptions suggest that the former has a facility by which the seat of the chair may be electrically raised and lowered, in order to assist a person who has difficulty in sitting or in rising from a seated position to undertake either manoeuvre with greater ease. The second suggests only that the chair has a back rest which may be raised or lowered electrically. 
5.	The criteria which must be satisfied if the chairs are to be zero-rated are set out in Group 12 of Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. At item 2, that Group applies zero-rating to: 
“the supply to a handicapped person for domestic or his personal use of …..”
(g)	equipment and appliances not included in paragraphs (a) to (f) above designed solely for use by a handicapped person”.
None of paragraphs (a) to (f) is apt to include chairs. Note (3) to the Group states that “‘handicapped’ means chronically sick or disabled.”
6.	The Respondents accept, as do we, that Mrs Lonie’s medical condition, as it is described in the correspondence, brings her within that category. The Respondents also accept that the “lift and rise” chair falls within item 2(g), and they have so indicated to Mr and Mrs Lonie who, on the strength of that indication, have, we understand, been able to obtain from the retailer a refund of the VAT they have paid on the supply of that chair. However, the Respondents do not accept that a chair which has an electrically operated back rest comes within item 2(g). 
7.	In our view the Respondents are correct in that conclusion. Mr and Mrs Lonie’s argument, as we interpret it, is that the chair was bought because of Mrs Lonie’s condition, and for that reason should be zero-rated. We are quite willing to accept that the chair was bought because of the condition and, indeed, that but for the condition it would not have been bought at all. But that is not the test. The article in question must be “designed solely for use by a handicapped person”. A chair with a seat which is raised and lowered electrically can properly be considered to be so designed, because an able-bodied person would have no need of such a seat and would not, in any normal circumstance, buy one for himself. But a chair with an electrically operated back rest, suitable though it may be for a disabled person, cannot be said to be designed for use solely by such a person: an able-bodied person might well acquire one as a means of relaxing, or of finding a comfortable position. Thus a chair of this kind cannot come within item 2(g), and zero-rating is not appropriate. 
8.	It may be that, as he indicates, Mr Lonie was misled by the retailer: that is not a matter with which this tribunal can deal. We may do no more than decide whether the Respondents were right in their conclusion that the chair in question is not eligible for zero-rating. We are satisfied that they were right, and that the appeal must be dismissed. 

COLIN BISHOPP
CHAIRMAN
Release Date: 21 November 2006

MAN/2006/0285