A ‘Planteria’ for the growing and storage of plants pending sale was premises, or a building, and not plant; no allowance was available. In considering the appeal, ‘the question for this Court, as it was for the Judge, is whether the facts found by the Commissioners are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the decision to which the Commissioners came or, if you prefer it in the other form, whether their decision is contradicted by the true and only reasonable conclusion from the facts found.’ As to the decision of whether an item constituted plant: ‘The essential question here is whether the structure which is the taxpayer’s planteria can reasonably be called apparatus with which their trade is carried on as opposed to premises in which it is carried on, it being established that a large structure used for the purposes of the trade may be capable of falling into the former category.
Judges:
Nourse, Kennedy and Beldam LJJ
Citations:
Times 31-May-1995, Gazette 31-Aug-1995, Ind Summary 19-Jun-1995, (1995) 67 TC 401
Statutes:
Capital Allowances Act 1990 22
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Gray (Inspector of Taxes) v Seymours Garden Centre Chd 10-May-1993
A glasshouse ‘planteria’ which was used to show plants in a garden centre, was premises and not plant for capital allowances purposes. . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Barclay Curle and Co Ltd 1969
Even a large structure used for the purposes of the trade may be capable of being plant. In this case a dry dock was used in trade of ship builders, ship repairers and marine engineers. . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Gray (Inspector of Taxes) v Seymours Garden Centre Chd 10-May-1993
A glasshouse ‘planteria’ which was used to show plants in a garden centre, was premises and not plant for capital allowances purposes. . .
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.
Income Tax
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80986
