United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Moore v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18653 (08 June 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2004/V18653.html
Cite as: [2004] UKVAT V18653

---

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

Moore v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18653 (08 June 2004)

18653

Zero-rating – installation in a listed building of a different type of sash windows – whether an approved alteration of a protected building – appeal against standard rating dismissed: VAT 1994 Schedule 8 Group 6 Note 6(c).

EDINBURGH TRIBUNAL CENTRE

BARRY MOORE Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: (Chairman): T Gordon Coutts, QC

Sitting in Aberdeen on Wednesday 2 June 2004

for the Appellant Mr B Moore

for the Respondents Mr R MacLeod, Shepherd & Wedderburn, WS

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004.


 


DECISION

The Appellant acquired an attractive listed building at Auchterless, Turriff, Aberdeenshire. He made various alterations thereto some of which were agreed as being appropriate for zero-rating. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the substitution of double glazed sash and case windows with decorative strips for the original sash windows which had integral astragals (single glazing) fell to be considered as an approved alteration. The definition in the legislation excludes works of repair and maintenance or any incidental alteration to the fabric of a building. It was narrated in an Agreed Statement of Facts that neither the fabric nor the look of the building was altered in any substantial way. The replacement window was double glazed and doubtless energy efficient. It had been given cosmetic treatment by the application of fake astragals. That procedure had not met with the approval of the Local Authorities Heritage Officer but his views were overruled by the Local Authorities who gave planning permission and listed building consent for the replacement windows.

The legislation is that in Schedule 8, Group 6 of the VATA, 1994, which applies zero rating to:

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.

Paragraph (1) of the Notes to that Group stated:

"Protected building" means a building which is designed to remain as or become a dwelling or number of dwellings … and which … is … a listed building, within the meaning of … the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 …

Paragraph (6) of the Notes to that Group stated that:

"alteration" does not include repair or maintenance; or any incidental alteration to the fabric of a building which results from repairs or maintenance.

Much correspondence ensued between the parties; the Appellant contending that his operations were not repair or maintenance, that the construction of the windows differed from the original and that the structure of the windows was altered. He contended that there was a change of construction of the window which meant an alteration had taken place and that the window was part of the fabric of the building.

The Respondents contention was that the old windows had simply been removed and replaced with new double glazed windows. The fact that the windows themselves were of a different construction to the original windows did not constitute an alteration to the building.

The Tribunal was of the view that no alteration had been made to the structure or fabric of the building. The window apertures remained as they were. The apertures were glazed and look the same as they had done before. It does not accord with common sense or use of language to consider the internal structure of a window as being part of the fabric of the building itself. The window remained as before, a window however it was in-filled. Desirable though double glazing may have appeared to the Appellant, and he accepted that the alteration was his choice, he has not in the ordinary usage of language effected any structural alteration to the building and accordingly his works do not fall within the zero-rating provisions of the legislation and require to bear tax at standard rate.

The Tribunal was referred to two other VAT decisions, 12045 – Ventrolla Ltd and 14733 Logmoor Ltd, which support the views expressed above.

The appeal is dismissed and a finding of no expenses to or by either party is made.

T GORDON COUTTS, QC

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE: 8 JUNE 2004

EDN/03/85