In Next Distribution Ltd v HMRC (and related appeals) (TC02100 – 5 July) a group of companies which sold goods by mail order claimed industrial building allowances on two warehouses which were used to store goods. HMRC rejected the claims and the companies appealed contending that they should be treated as subjecting the goods to a process. The First-tier Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed the appeals. Judge Shipwright held that the companies were ‘not subjecting goods to a process as the goods remain unchanged’.
Why it matters: There is a considerable amount of money at stake in this case. CAA 2001 s 274(1) (which was repealed by FA 2008) provided that a qualifying trade for industrial buildings allowances included ‘a trade consisting of...
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 Next Distribution Ltd v HMRC (and related appeals) (TC02100 – 5 July) a group of companies which sold goods by mail order claimed industrial building allowances on two warehouses which were used to store goods. HMRC rejected the claims and the companies appealed contending that they should be treated as subjecting the goods to a process. The First-tier Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed the appeals. Judge Shipwright held that the companies were ‘not subjecting goods to a process as the goods remain unchanged’.
Why it matters: There is a considerable amount of money at stake in this case. CAA 2001 s 274(1) (which was repealed by FA 2008) provided that a qualifying trade for industrial buildings allowances included ‘a trade consisting of...
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:
