Case Law Flashcards
example for fines and penalties
mclaren racing ltd V hmrc
mclaren paid a fine to the world motor sport council for spying on ferrari
not in the course of trade therefore not allowable deduction
example that defines plant
yarmouth v france
“whatever apparatus is used to carry on business - not stock-in-trade that is bought or made for sale; but all goods or chattel, dead or alive, fixed or moveable which is kept for permanent employment in the business”
example for CA - setting cannot be claimed as P&M
j lyons & co V attorney general
held that electrical lighting in a tearoom is part of the general setting in which the business is carried out
this has been revisited many times since
example for CA - qualifying as plant
jarrold v john jood & sons
courts found that moving partitions are part of the apparatus with which the company carried out business
capital allowances claimed only as moveable and not fixed to the wall
example for CA - qualifying as plant
cir v scottish & newcastle breweries
claimed CA on murals, tapestries and sculptures etc for in their pub
allowed on the grounds that it created atmosphere and ambience - which was an important part of the company’s trade
example for CA - qualifying as plant
cooke v beach station caravans
caravan park claimed CA on construction of 2 swimming pools
hmrc denied as said it was part of the setting
court found swimming pool was part of the means whereby trade is carried on therefore ruled as plant
example for CA - not qualifying as plant
dixon v fitch’s garage
tried to claim CA on canopy and lights above petrol pumps
ruled as not plant as it did not assist with the delivery of petrol - just provided shelter
example for CA - not qualifying as plant
benson v yard arm club
created floating restaurant by converting an old ship - tried to claim CA on the grounds that the ship was essential apparatus in carrying out business of floating restaurant
ruled not plant as ship was a structure in which business was being carried out
example for CA - not qualifying as plant
hampton v fortes autogrill
caterers installed false ceilings - were a permanent fixture and provided support for pipes / electricals etc
hmrc refused the claim for CA on the grounds that ceilings are not plant
ruled not plant as ceilings are a covering and therefore provided in the setting - not a functioning apparatus
example for CA - mix - qualifying and not qualifying
wimpy international ltd v warland
fast food restaurant fitted with moveable and permanent items
claimed on all as said was part of the ambience to attract customers to make profit not loss
moveable items ruled as qualifying, fixed items ruled not qualifying
example for CA - mix - qualifying and not qualifying
jd whetherspoon v revenue and customs commissioner
whetherspoons claimed for:
* decorative items such a panelling
* building alterations to include plant
* preliminary costs ie scaffolding
held:
* panelling becomes part of the structure of the building therefore not allowed
* expenditure needed to be as a result of plant being installed - could be strengthening a floor for industrial cookers but not alterations to meet H&S requirements
* pro-rata apportionment for small construction projects
example for loss restriction (s.64)
patel v hmrc
- sold indian art
- sold indian cooking ingredients & cooking classes
- denied loss as did not have a view to profit was just a hobby
- not on a commercial basis
