Paul McGuire v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1225 (TC)

[2026] UKFTT 01225 (TC)Case No TC 09994
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
Hearing Heard on: 12 August 2026Date Judgment date: 21 August 2026
By remote video hearing
Appeal reference: TC/2025/04389
VALUE ADDED TAX — Strike out application - repayment claim under DIY Builders’ and Converters’ VAT Refund Scheme — claim refused by HMRC — claim failed to meet reg 201 requirements — appeal struck out
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE STAPENHURSTMS DEIGHTON
Between
PAUL MCGUIREAppellantTHE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMSRespondentMr Brian McGuire of HLB McGuire + Farry Accountants, representing Mr Paul McGuire for AppellantMr Kabir Adeleke, litigator of HM Revenue and Customs’ Solicitor’s Office for RespondentsDECISION

Introduction

[1]This is an application made by the Respondents, HM Revenue and Customs ("HMRC"), to strike out the Appellant's appeal pursuant to Rule 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (“Tribunal Rules”).[2]The Appellant, Mr Paul McGuire, submitted a claim under the DIY Housebuilders' Scheme on 31 January 2025 seeking repayment of VAT in the sum of £43,912.41 incurred in the construction of a dwelling at Upper Malone Road, Belfast.[3]The claim was rejected by HMRC on the basis that it was submitted outside the time limit prescribed by Regulation 201 of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 (the “1995 Regulations”). Following a statutory review, HMRC upheld that decision by letter dated 8 October 2025. The Appellant subsequently notified an appeal to the Tribunal.[4]In his Notice of Appeal, the Appellant acknowledges that the claim was submitted late but contends that the delay arose from exceptional personal circumstances following a catastrophic accident suffered by his wife on 30 May 2022 when a large metal gate fell on her, causing serious injuries and prolonged rehabilitation. He asks the Tribunal to allow an extension of time and direct HMRC to process the claim.[5]HMRC now apply to strike out the appeal. Their primary contention is that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. In the alternative they contend that the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

The Legal Framework

[6]The Legal Framework Section 35 VATA The ability to reclaim VAT incurred in the construction of a dwelling is provided by s. 35 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 ("VATA"). Section 35 provides, so far as material:
"(1) Where - (a) a person carries out works to which this section applies, (b) his carrying out of the works is lawful and otherwise than in the course or furtherance of any business, and (c) VAT is chargeable on the supply, acquisition or importation of any goods used by him for the purposes of the works, the Commissioners shall, on a claim made in that behalf, refund to that person the amount of VAT so chargeable. ... (2) The Commissioners shall not be required to entertain a claim for a refund of VAT under this section unless the claim - (a) is made within such time and in such form and manner, (b) contains such information, and (c) is accompanied by such documents, whether by way of evidence or otherwise, as may be specified by regulations or by the Commissioners in accordance with regulations."

Regulation 201

[7]The requirements for making a claim are contained in the 1995 Regulations, which provide:
"A claimant shall make his claim in respect of a relevant building by - (a) furnishing to the Commissioners no later than 3 months after the completion of the building the relevant form for the purposes of the claim containing the full particulars required therein, and (b) at the same time furnishing to them - (i) a certificate of completion obtained from a local authority or such other documentary evidence of completion of the building as is satisfactory to the Commissioners, ... (iv) documentary evidence that planning permission for the building has been granted..."
[8]At the time the Appellant's dwelling was completed, Regulation 201 of the 1995 Regulations required a claim to be submitted within three months of completion. The time limit was subsequently extended to six months for claims relating to buildings completed on or after 5 December 2023. As the Appellant's dwelling was completed on 1 December 2022, the applicable time limit in this case was three months.[9]The completion certificate relied upon by the Appellant records a completion date of 1 December 2022. Accordingly, any claim under Regulation 201 was required to be submitted by 1 March 2023. The Appellant's claim was not made until 31 January 2025.

Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules

[10]Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules Rule 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 provides, so far as material:
"(2) The Tribunal must strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if the Tribunal - (a) does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them; and (b) does not exercise its power under rule 5(3)(k)(i) (transfer to another court or tribunal) in relation to the proceedings or that part of them. ... (3) The Tribunal may strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if - ... (c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding."

Relevant Authorities

[11]In Patel v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2014] UKUT 361 (TCC) (“Patel”), the Upper Tribunal considered a claim under the DIY Housebuilders Scheme where the taxpayer had failed to provide the planning documentation required by Regulation 201 within the prescribed time limit. The First-tier Tribunal had allowed the appeal, but HMRC successfully appealed to the Upper Tribunal.[12]The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal had erred by failing properly to consider the requirements of Regulation 201. It observed that Regulation 201 required a claimant, within the prescribed period, to provide documentary evidence that planning permission had been granted in respect of the works actually carried out. The taxpayer was unable to satisfy those requirements because the relevant permission had not been obtained until after expiry of the statutory time limit.[13]At paragraph [21] the Upper Tribunal stated:
"The requirements of the regulation are framed in mandatory terms; HMRC are allowed no discretion to accept something less than the prescribed documentation, nor to extend the time limit, and it is equally not open to the FTT or to us to do so."
[14]The Upper Tribunal concluded that the taxpayer's claim could not succeed and allowed HMRC's appeal. At paragraph [23] it described the statutory requirements as "strict" and stated that it was not open to the Tribunal to waive or modify them, even where that might appear to produce an unfair outcome.[15]In Dunbar v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 747 (TC) (“Dunbar”), the Tribunal considered Patel and expressed reservations about the statement that HMRC possessed no discretion in relation to claims which failed to satisfy Regulation 201. Judge Vos observed that s 35(2) VATA provides that HMRC "shall not be required to entertain a claim" unless the statutory conditions are met and considered that this wording might arguably imply a residual discretion on the part of HMRC to consider a non-compliant claim.[16]However, the Tribunal in Dunbar recognised that it was bound by Patel and further accepted that any such discretion, if it existed, would belong to HMRC rather than to the Tribunal. At paragraph [28]

Judge Vos stated:

"However, even if we are right on this point, we accept that we are bound by the decision of the Upper Tribunal in Asim Patel and, in any event, the discretion to extend the time limit is one which is given only to HMRC and not to the Tribunal."
[17]Dunbar therefore does not depart from Patel. On the contrary, it expressly recognises that Patel is binding authority. While Dunbar contains observations questioning whether Patel correctly analysed the extent of HMRC's powers, it accepts that the Tribunal itself possesses no power to extend the statutory time limit prescribed by Regulation 201.[18]The Appellant referred to DDK Projects Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1251 (TC) (“DDK”). That case concerned penalties for late payment of VAT and the statutory reasonable excuse defence contained in Schedule 26 Finance Act 2021. The Tribunal allowed the appeal after concluding that the taxpayer had established a reasonable excuse for late payment.[19]DDK was not concerned with claims under s. 35 VATA, Regulation 201, or the DIY Housebuilders Scheme.

Discussion

[20]Discussion HMRC apply to strike out the appeal on two grounds. First, pursuant to Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Rules on the basis that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. Secondly, pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) on the basis that the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.[21]The relevant facts are not in dispute. The completion certificate records a completion date of 1 December 2022. The Appellant's claim was submitted on 31 January 2025, substantially outside the three-month period prescribed by Regulation 201.[22]We accept for the purposes of this application that Mrs McGuire suffered serious injuries in May 2022 and that those circumstances had a significant impact on the Appellant and his family.[23]However, the appeal turns on a question of law rather than fact. The Appellant asks the Tribunal to direct HMRC to accept a claim made outside the statutory time limit because of those exceptional circumstances.[24]In our judgment, no such power exists. The binding authority is Patel, in which the Upper Tribunal held that the requirements of Regulation 201 are mandatory and that the Tribunal has no power to extend the statutory time limit or waive the prescribed requirements.[25]DDK does not assist the Appellant. That case concerned a statutory reasonable-excuse defence in a penalty appeal. It did not concern s. 35 VATA, Regulation 201 or the DIY Housebuilders' Scheme, and provides no support for the proposition that the Tribunal may extend the time limit prescribed by Regulation 201.[26]Nor does Dunbar assist the Appellant. Although the Tribunal expressed reservations about aspects of the reasoning in Patel, it expressly recognised that it was bound by that decision and accepted that any discretion, if it existed, belonged to HMRC rather than the Tribunal.[27]We do not accept HMRC's submission that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine appeals against HMRC decisions concerning claims under s. 35 VATA. However, applying Patel, it has no power to grant the relief sought by the Appellant.[28]Accordingly, even accepting all factual matters relied upon by the Appellant, there is no legal basis upon which the Tribunal could grant the relief sought. The appeal therefore has no reasonable prospect of success and falls to be struck out pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Rules.

Decision

[29]Decision HMRC’s application is granted. The appeal is struck out pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Rules on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success.

Right to apply for permission to appeal

[30]Right to apply for permission to appeal This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Rules. The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice. Release date: 21 August 2026