In P Telfer v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 614 (31 August 2016) the FTT found that a caravan did not qualify as plant for capital allowances purposes.
Mr Telfer was employed as a caravan warden by the Caravan Club and the issue was whether the caravans he had purchased and occupied qualified as plant or machinery for capital allowances purposes.
Applying Yard Arm Club ((1975-81) 53 TC 67) the question was whether Mr Telfer’s caravan was something by means of which he carried out the duties of his employment or merely the place (or part of the place) within which those duties were carried out. This led to a consideration of the ambit of Mr Telfer’s duties as an assistant warden. The Caravan Club’s requirement that an assistant warden must reside on site throughout the duration of their employment was not enough to...
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 P Telfer v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 614 (31 August 2016) the FTT found that a caravan did not qualify as plant for capital allowances purposes.
Mr Telfer was employed as a caravan warden by the Caravan Club and the issue was whether the caravans he had purchased and occupied qualified as plant or machinery for capital allowances purposes.
Applying Yard Arm Club ((1975-81) 53 TC 67) the question was whether Mr Telfer’s caravan was something by means of which he carried out the duties of his employment or merely the place (or part of the place) within which those duties were carried out. This led to a consideration of the ambit of Mr Telfer’s duties as an assistant warden. The Caravan Club’s requirement that an assistant warden must reside on site throughout the duration of their employment was not enough to...
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:
