‘A ruling by the UK’s Upper Tribunal (UT) disallowing certain types of expenditure relating to windfarm projects from qualifying for plant and machinery tax allowances has indicated the tribunal’s “strict and narrow” interpretation of the provisions for qualifying expenditure.’
OUT-LAW.com, 13th December 2023
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Section 298(1) of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 (CAA 2001) offered taxpayers Enterprise Zone allowances (EZAs) as an inducement to taking on the financial risks of newbuild industrial developments in disadvantaged areas, without a tenant. It extended their availability for a further 10 years after expiry of the 10-year life of an enterprise zone (EZ), provided that the qualifying “expenditure is incurred under a contract entered into within” the first 10 years (“the proviso”). According to the Court of Appeal1 changes made to a development, resulted in two building contracts with the claimed expenditure incurred under the second, being a “separate” contract
Monckton Chambers, 22nd March 2023
Source: www.monckton.com
‘Burnley Hall brought a claim for specific performance of a put option agreement. The agreement was part of a broader transaction by which the claimant, a limited liability partnership, entered into a joint venture for the development of student accommodation. The venture was entered into on condition that Business Premises Renovation Allowances (under Part 3A of the Capital Allowances Act 2001) would be available and in the event that they were not, Burnley Hall secured the right to extricate itself from the transaction by exercising a put option to require the defendants to take back the leases they had granted and to repay the sums invested by the individuals behind the LLP.’
Falcon Chambers, 14th November 2017
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
“At the hearing of a taxpayer’s appeal against a closure notice determining an inquiry into a limited liability partnership’s tax return, the revenue was not confined to relying on the precise reasons for the decision given by the investigating officer in his closure notice.”
WLR Daily, 11th May 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed
Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
House of Lords
“Expenditure on a warehouse which was used for storage of goods which the taxpayer was in the business of importing and selling was not expenditure on an industrial building so as to qualify under section 18 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990.”
The Times, 2nd September 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“The expenditure on a warehouse building which was used for storage of goods which the taxpayer was in the business of importing and selling was not expenditure on an industrial building and therefore did not qualify as a capital allowance under s 18 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990.”
WLR Daily, 1st August 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Act does not operate to curb enterprise zone losses
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Smallwood
Court of Appeal
“Section 41(2) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 did not operate to restrict allowable losses that would otherwise have accrued in respect of a taxpayer’s units in an enterprise zone property unit trust when he received distributions that gave rise to a deemed disposal under section 122 of that Act.”
The Times, 7th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
© Inner Temple Library 2024