Market leading insight for tax experts
View online issue

Capital allowances: a question of design?

Paul Farey (AECOM) considers the impact of the Upper Tribunal’s ruling in the Gunfleet Sands case.

Considering the plethora of cases concerning the definition of plant and the various tests that the courts have devised for that purpose it might seem reasonable to assume that little uncertainty remains concerning the scope of expenditure that qualifies for capital allowances. However in Gunfleet Sands Ltd v HMRC [2023] UKUT 260 (TCC) the Upper Tribunal (UT) had to consider whether new tests specific to design costs had been correctly introduced by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) or even whether the disputed costs were actually design costs at all. Therefore  the decision of the UT sheds further light on how the courts decide whether or not disputed expenditure has been incurred ‘on the provision of plant’.

Background

The dispute in Gunfleet Sands Ltd v HMRC [2023] UKUT 260 (TCC) concerned four group companies...

If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:

If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:

Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.
EDITOR'S PICKstar
Top