United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

Townsend v Customs & Excise [2003] UKVAT V18327 (25 September 2003)

VAT – Appellant disabled – entitlement to zero-rated supplies – VAT Act 1994 Sch 8, Group 12

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

ANTHONY J TOWNSEND Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Peter H Lawson (Chairman)

Sitting in public in Cardiff on 20 August 2003

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

Ben Collins, Counsel, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2003


 


DECISION
1. This is an appeal by Mr Anthony J Townsend who lives at Trimsaran, Kidwelly, Carmarthanshire.
2. In the absence of the Appellant, the hearing was conducted under Rule 26(2) of the Tribunal Rules.
3. The Appellant is disabled. He contracted necrotising fasciitis in the course of an operation in hospital in 1996. After the operation he purchased a jacuzzi which is of therapeutic benefit to his condition. The Commissioners ruled that the supply of the jacuzzi fell within Item 2(g) of Group 12 of Schedule 8 of the VAT Act 1995 and was, therefore, zero rated. The Appellant wrote to the Commissioners requesting that the zero rating be extended to the electricity required to run his jacuzzi.
4. The Commissioners responded by saying that, the jacuzzi having been confirmed as qualifying for zero rating, it followed that under Item 2(h) of Group 12, any parts and accessories designed solely for use with a jacuzzi and, under Item 5 of Group 12, the supply of a service of repair or maintenance of the jacuzzi would qualify for relief from VAT by way of zero rating provided that the necessary declaration was issued by him to the supplier of such services. They stated, however, that there is no provision in the legislation for the running costs of the jacuzzi to be zero rated. The Appellant's letter was treated as a request for reconsideration, which was accordingly carried out by Mrs Julie Jones of Cardiff Business Advice Centre. She confirmed Mrs Harris's ruling that there was no provision in the VAT legislation relating to the running costs of the jacuzzi, i.e. the electricity costs.
5. There is no provision in the legislation for the zero rating of electricity. It is in fact liable to VAT at the lower rate of 5%.
6. It is worth mentioning that parts and accessories designed solely for use in or with goods described in sub paragraphs (a) to (i) of paragraph 2 of Group 12 also qualify for zero rating.
7. The relief from VAT by way of zero rating is quite extensive in relation to handicapped people but, as already stated above, it does not include the supply of electricity which has its own lower rate of VAT.
8. While this appeal must fail, therefore, the Appellant should not be disheartened by this as, if he needs other equipment to assist with the treatment of his condition, it will be worthwhile looking at the list of items which do qualify for zero rating and that is a matter on which the local office of the Customs and Excise will be pleased to assist.
9. The appeal is dismissed and there will no direction as to costs.
PETER H LAWSON CHAIRMAN RELEASED:

LON/02/331