The taxpayer claimed capital allowances for expenditure on purpose built permanent quarantine kennels.
Held: It was not expenditure on plant. To decide whether a structure is plant so as to qualify for capiltal allowances, the question is whether the item can reasonably be called apparatus with which the trade is carried on, as opposed to the premises in or on which it is carried on.
Judges:
Sir Donald Nicholls VC
Citations:
(1992) 65 TC 15
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195998