Capital allowances.
The taxpayer operated automatic car wash sites. It claimed capital allowances for the entirety of a wash hall, housed within a building incorporating washing machinery and control equipment, and surrounded by tarmac areas used for circulation, queuing and parking. It said that the entire site, or entire wash hall, was a single item of qualifying plant. The Inspector accepted that some of the car wash facilities were plant, but not each entire site. The Special Commissioners allowed the taxpayer’s appeal. The Crown succeeded on appeal to the judge.
Held: The appeal was denied, applying the ‘premises’ test. The only reasonable conclusion was that neither an entire site nor an entire wash hall (i.e. the building housing the car wash machinery) could be regarded as a unit of plant: although they satisfied the business use test, they failed the premises test, as both the entire site and the wash hall functioned as premises, not as plant. ‘It is hard to see how land, as distinct from a structure could ever be apparatus functioning as plant.’
Judges:
Peter Gibson LJ, Robert Walker and Beldam LJJ
Citations:
[1997] EWCA Civ 2128, (1997) 69 TC 575
Statutes:
Capital Allowances Act 1990 22 24
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Attwood (Inspector of Taxes) v Anduff Car Wash Ltd ChD 11-Dec-1995
No capital allowances for car wash structures. They were part of premises, not plant. . .
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: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142525
