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 that the AWT operated as the premises.
Judges:
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Scott Baker
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 391, Times 26-Apr-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Scottish and Newcastle Breweries Ltd HL 4-Mar-1982
Expenditure on refurbishment, decor and fittings in hotels was held to be plant though forming part of the setting of the hotels. The House considered the interpretation of undefined expressions in fiscal legislation, such as ‘trade’, ‘income’, . .
Cited – Anchor International Ltd v Inland Revenue SCIT 16-Jan-2003
An installation of a synthetic grass turf ‘carpet’ for five-a-side football pitches was plant, since it was not a fixed structure. It was ‘the means by which the appellant generates profits rather than merely the setting.’ . .
Cited – Gray (Inspector of Taxes) v Seymours Garden Centre (Horticulture) CA 31-May-1995
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 . .
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 – Wimpy International Ltd v Warland 1988
Expenditure on modernising restaurants with shop fronts, floor and wall tiles, wall finishes, suspended ceilings, raised floors, fire doors and fire proofings was held not to be plant. The court asked what marks indicate that a structure premises of . .
Cited – Carr v Sayer 1992
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 . .
Cited – H M Inspector of Taxes (Atwood) v Anduff Car Wash Limited CA 17-Jul-1997
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 . .
Cited – Cooke v Beach Station Caravans Ltd 1974
The excavation and construction of 2 swimming pools in a caravan park was held to be the provision of plant, not premises or setting. . .
Cited – Benson v Yard Arm Club Ltd 1979
The purchase and conversion of a vessel and barge to be used as permanently moored floating restaurant was held not to be the provision of plant to attract allowances. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Corporation Tax
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.195031
