Les Howard

Fair comment, Alf.
I did make a deliberate decision some years ago not to try to provide comprehensive guidance in my blog, but to raise issues for practitioners to pursue themselves.
Where Accountants have specific issues with individual clients, they are always welcome to contact me for further advice; and some do so.

As is so often the case, had the taxpayer sought suitable advice at the start of the project, he would have secured his VAT repayment, and avoided costly and long-drawn-out correspondence with HMRC, let alone the Tribunal.
(Did you spot who was the Tribunal Member?)

This is a real concern for many advisors.
One additional factor is that, having determined that the taxpayer made a 'deliberate' error, HMRC can publish his/her details in their quarterly report, subject to the £25,000 threshold. This puts the taxpayer's behaviour right into the public arena.

Back to hard copy submissions?

It's 'pages.' Amendment made.
thank you.

(I do like to talk about a particular tax!)
Interesting comments that small statism was effectively introduced through Margaret Thatcher, so we have 'enjoyed' it for less than 40 years. Yet, it seems to have been around forever, and many people assume that there is no alternative. Perhaps, if Labour win the election, we will see an alternative.
(and I express no preference either way!)

Sub contractors can use the reduced rate for an eligible project which relates to domestic dwelling(s). But not for RRP or RCP projects. Certificates are not required for dwellings. Para 17.4 refers to RRP or RCP projects, for which certificates are provided. Further, the wording in the certificate in para 18.1 is not correct.
I always recommend more detailed advice for such projects, as often projects which are eligible for the reduced rate frequently include specific elements which are standard rated, meaning an apportionment is required.

You are correct. But, if a Charity thinks it can minimise its irrecoverable VAT by purchasing supplies from outside the UK, then it is an unwelcome surprise. (Many Charities do not appreciate the impact of the Reverse Charge.)
A VAT-free invoice triggers a VAT charge: and that is the 'anomaly.'

ETB were represented by a previous Director of the company, so that would be much less than a specialist Barrister.

I don't think Fagomatic can be revisited. It was a sole trader, so no contract of employment. The car was available to the taxpayer for his private use.