In JD Wetherspoon plc v HMRC (and cross-appeal) (Upper Tribunal – 6 February) a company which operated a large chain of public houses incurred substantial expenditure in converting a dilapidated theatre and two shops into public houses. It claimed capital allowances on this expenditure. HMRC rejected much of the claim on the basis that various items of expenditure did not qualify as ‘plant’. The company appealed. The Special Commissioners reviewed the evidence in detail and allowed the appeal in part holding inter alia that decorative panelling did not qualify as plant because it was ‘part of the premises’; that kitchen tiles also did not qualify as plant; that expenditure on a new drainage system qualified as plant and that certain items of preliminary expenditure qualified for allowances under what is now CAA 2001 s 25....
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 JD Wetherspoon plc v HMRC (and cross-appeal) (Upper Tribunal – 6 February) a company which operated a large chain of public houses incurred substantial expenditure in converting a dilapidated theatre and two shops into public houses. It claimed capital allowances on this expenditure. HMRC rejected much of the claim on the basis that various items of expenditure did not qualify as ‘plant’. The company appealed. The Special Commissioners reviewed the evidence in detail and allowed the appeal in part holding inter alia that decorative panelling did not qualify as plant because it was ‘part of the premises’; that kitchen tiles also did not qualify as plant; that expenditure on a new drainage system qualified as plant and that certain items of preliminary expenditure qualified for allowances under what is now CAA 2001 s 25....
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:
