BMBF (No 24) Limited v the Commissioners of Inland Revenue: CA 6 Nov 2003

The taxpayer, a non-resident, operated a sale and lease back scheme of machinery to be used in its business within the UK. There had been a chain of leases.
Held: The court had first to identify the ‘relevant lease’. It was the head lease which was the lease of the machinery on which the expemse was reclaimed. In falling foul of section 52, it operated to disallow attraction to the capital allowance claimed.
Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Simon Brown
[2003] EWCA Civ 1560, Times 27-Nov-2003
Bailii
Capital Allowances Act 1990 42(3)(a), Taxes Management Act 1970 56A
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBMBF (No 24) Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 26-Nov-2002
Equipment in Illinois was transferred to a UK company within the same group, then sold and leased back in order to take advantage of capital allowances. The Act provided for a reduction in the allowance where machinery was let to a foreign company, . .
Awaiting AppealBarclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 22-Jul-2002
The taxpayer sought to claim for capital allowances of andpound;91 million for gas pipelines. The claimant had provided the equipment through a leasing scheme.
Held: The leases were unusual, but did not appear to be merely part of a tax . .
CitedW T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
CitedMacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd HL 15-Feb-2001
The fact that a payment of interest was made only to create a tax advantage did not prevent its being properly claimed. Interest was paid for the purposes of setting it against tax, when the debt was discharged. A company with substantial losses had . .

Cited by:
Appealed toBMBF (No 24) Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 26-Nov-2002
Equipment in Illinois was transferred to a UK company within the same group, then sold and leased back in order to take advantage of capital allowances. The Act provided for a reduction in the allowance where machinery was let to a foreign company, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 January 2021; Ref: scu.187539