Expenditure on modernising restaurants with shop fronts, floor and wall tiles, wall finishes, suspended ceilings, raised floors, fire doors and fire proofings was held not to be plant. The court asked what marks indicate that a structure premises of plant, for capital allowances purposes: ‘It is proper to consider the function of the item in dispute. But the question is what does it function as? If it functions as part of the premises it is not plant.’
Judges:
Hoffmann J, Fox LJ, Lloyd LJ
Citations:
[1988] SDTC 149, (1988) 61 TC 51
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Shove (Inspector of Taxes) v Lingfield Park 1991 Ltd ChD 21-Jul-2003
The taxpayer, a race track owner, sought to claim the cost of laying an artificial all-weather race track surface as a capital allowance. The commissioners had found that it retained a separate identity from the grass, requiring maintenance and so . .
Cited – Lingfield Park (1991) Limited v Shove CA 31-Mar-2004
The taxpayers sought capital allowances on the costs of installing an artificial all-weather race track.
Held: The track was not either plant or machinery, and the taxpayer was not eligible for the relief. The only reasonable conclusion was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Corporation Tax
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185847