References: Gazette 10-Mar-1993, Ind Summary 01-Mar-1993
The taxpayer had acquired capital assets under a financing arrangement in which payments were spread over several tax periods. It was appropriate to treat those payments in according with normal accounting practice, rather than to seek to pull them into the one period.
This case cites:
- Appealed to – Gallagher -v- Jones (Inspector of Taxes) Threlfall -v- Same CA (Gazette 08-Sep-93, Ind Summary 26-Jul-93, Times 01-Jul-93, [1994] Ch 107)
Commercial Practice is to be followed in apportioning payments under a lease between different tax years. There is no requirement that expenditure must be charged to year it in which technically falls due, but tax accounts must not give a misleading . .
This case is cited by:
- Appeal from – Gallagher -v- Jones (Inspector of Taxes) Threlfall -v- Same CA (Gazette 08-Sep-93, Ind Summary 26-Jul-93, Times 01-Jul-93, [1994] Ch 107)
Commercial Practice is to be followed in apportioning payments under a lease between different tax years. There is no requirement that expenditure must be charged to year it in which technically falls due, but tax accounts must not give a misleading . .
