In PD J & LD Brockhouse (t/a A5 Aquatics) v HMRC (TC01235 – 28 July) a partnership which sold aquariums fish and associated products incurred expenditure of £81 353 on erecting fencing around land which it owned.
It claimed capital allowances on the expenditure.
Following an enquiry HMRC issued a closure notice rejecting the claim and the partnership appealed contending that the fencing should be treated as qualifying for allowances under CAA 2001 s 33.
The First-tier Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed the appeal finding that ‘what evidence there is leads directly to the only conclusion that the purpose in incurring the expenditure was to protect the land and the stock’.
Accordingly the expenditure did not meet the requirements of s 33.
In PD J & LD Brockhouse (t/a A5 Aquatics) v HMRC (TC01235 – 28 July) a partnership which sold aquariums fish and associated products incurred expenditure of £81 353 on erecting fencing around land which it owned.
It claimed capital allowances on the expenditure.
Following an enquiry HMRC issued a closure notice rejecting the claim and the partnership appealed contending that the fencing should be treated as qualifying for allowances under CAA 2001 s 33.
The First-tier Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed the appeal finding that ‘what evidence there is leads directly to the only conclusion that the purpose in incurring the expenditure was to protect the land and the stock’.
Accordingly the expenditure did not meet the requirements of s 33.
