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, but subsection 3 removed the allowance altogether where the machinery was not used for a qualifying purpose. Whilst the drafting may be deficient, it was the case that the provisions applied to sub-leases, and the arrangement was caught and was not effective.
Judges:
Etherton J
Citations:
Times 12-Dec-2002, Gazette 23-Jan-2003
Statutes:
Capital Allowances Act 1990 24 42(1) 42(2) 42(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – 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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Corporation Tax
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.178415