In Mrs ME McMillin v HMRC (TC00943 – 8 February) an accountant purchased a house and some adjacent land and arranged for the construction of four cottages to be let as holiday accommodation. She claimed capital allowances on stone floors windows on painting and decorating and on the creation of an earth mound. HMRC rejected the claims and she appealed contending that the whole site should be treated as plant. The First-tier Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed her appeal holding that ‘neither the whole site nor any of the individual items can be classed as plant or machinery’.
Why it matters: The First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC’s view that the disputed expenditure failed to qualify for capital allowances and rejected the accountant’s contention that the whole site should be classified as plant.
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 Mrs ME McMillin v HMRC (TC00943 – 8 February) an accountant purchased a house and some adjacent land and arranged for the construction of four cottages to be let as holiday accommodation. She claimed capital allowances on stone floors windows on painting and decorating and on the creation of an earth mound. HMRC rejected the claims and she appealed contending that the whole site should be treated as plant. The First-tier Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed her appeal holding that ‘neither the whole site nor any of the individual items can be classed as plant or machinery’.
Why it matters: The First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC’s view that the disputed expenditure failed to qualify for capital allowances and rejected the accountant’s contention that the whole site should be classified as plant.
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:
