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’.
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:
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’.
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: