In HMRC v Lloyds TSB Equipment Leasing (A3/2013/3108 – 30 July 2014) the Court of Appeal found that a commercial transaction could have as one of its main objects the obtaining of capital allowances.
Lloyds Equipment leasing (LEL) had claimed 25% writing-down capital allowance (CAA 2001 s 123) – which HMRC had denied – in respect of expenditure incurred on two merchant vessels of which it was the owner and lessor under a financing arrangement. Those vessels were used for the shipping of liquefied natural gas.
There was no dispute that the boats were used for a ‘qualifying purpose’ however the issue was whether ‘the main object or one of the main objects’ of any of the transactions in question ‘was to obtain a writing-down allowance’. If it was the claim would fail under s 123(4) which excludes...
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 HMRC v Lloyds TSB Equipment Leasing (A3/2013/3108 – 30 July 2014) the Court of Appeal found that a commercial transaction could have as one of its main objects the obtaining of capital allowances.
Lloyds Equipment leasing (LEL) had claimed 25% writing-down capital allowance (CAA 2001 s 123) – which HMRC had denied – in respect of expenditure incurred on two merchant vessels of which it was the owner and lessor under a financing arrangement. Those vessels were used for the shipping of liquefied natural gas.
There was no dispute that the boats were used for a ‘qualifying purpose’ however the issue was whether ‘the main object or one of the main objects’ of any of the transactions in question ‘was to obtain a writing-down allowance’. If it was the claim would fail under s 123(4) which excludes...
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:
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")