In Dean & Reddyhoff Ltd v HMRC (TC02767 – 9 July) a company constructed a marina at Portland in Dorset. It incurred expenditure on the construction of a sea wall the construction of a plinth to enable buildings to be constructed and the construction of floodwater drainage systems. It claimed relief under FA 2001 Sch 22 on the basis that this constituted ‘qualifying land remediation expenditure’. HMRC rejected the claim on the grounds that ‘the land in respect of which the expenditure was incurred was not in a contaminated state within the terms of the relief’. The company appealed. The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal in part holding that the company was entitled to relief for work carried out on the foreshore. However the construction of a breakwater on the seabed and work carried out on land above the tidal...
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:
In Dean & Reddyhoff Ltd v HMRC (TC02767 – 9 July) a company constructed a marina at Portland in Dorset. It incurred expenditure on the construction of a sea wall the construction of a plinth to enable buildings to be constructed and the construction of floodwater drainage systems. It claimed relief under FA 2001 Sch 22 on the basis that this constituted ‘qualifying land remediation expenditure’. HMRC rejected the claim on the grounds that ‘the land in respect of which the expenditure was incurred was not in a contaminated state within the terms of the relief’. The company appealed. The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal in part holding that the company was entitled to relief for work carried out on the foreshore. However the construction of a breakwater on the seabed and work carried out on land above the tidal...
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:
