In Herts Photographic Bureau Ltd v HMRC (TC00868 – 23 December) a close company (H) had purchased a property in 1962 for the purpose of a trade of photography. It ceased to carry on this trade in 1996 and began leasing the property. In 2007 after a dispute with the tenant it sold the property. In its accounts for the year ending May 2008 H claimed that it was entitled to the benefit of the small companies’ rate. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that H was a ‘close investment-holding company’. H appealed contending that it intended to reinvest the sale proceeds in another property so that it existed ‘for the purpose of making investments in land’ within what is now CTA 2010 s 34(2)(b). The First-Tier Tribunal accepted H’s evidence and allowed its appeal.
Why it matters:...
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 Herts Photographic Bureau Ltd v HMRC (TC00868 – 23 December) a close company (H) had purchased a property in 1962 for the purpose of a trade of photography. It ceased to carry on this trade in 1996 and began leasing the property. In 2007 after a dispute with the tenant it sold the property. In its accounts for the year ending May 2008 H claimed that it was entitled to the benefit of the small companies’ rate. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that H was a ‘close investment-holding company’. H appealed contending that it intended to reinvest the sale proceeds in another property so that it existed ‘for the purpose of making investments in land’ within what is now CTA 2010 s 34(2)(b). The First-Tier Tribunal accepted H’s evidence and allowed its appeal.
Why it matters:...
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:
