In Urenco Chemplants Ltd and others v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 1587 (1 December 2022) the Court of Appeal (CA) found that the Upper Tribunal (UT) had erred in law in setting aside the First-tier Tribunal’s (FTT) decision that expenditure incurred by Urenco on the construction of nuclear deconversion facility did not qualify for capital allowances. It also found that a drafting error originating in the Tax Law Rewrite Project had wrongly narrowed the scope of List C of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 s 23 (CAA 2001) and that on a proper construction of the provision expenditure incurred ‘on the provision of’ List C assets should qualify for capital allowances.
Urenco spent £1bn constructing a ‘tails management facility’ for the processing of depleted uranium tails....
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 Urenco Chemplants Ltd and others v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 1587 (1 December 2022) the Court of Appeal (CA) found that the Upper Tribunal (UT) had erred in law in setting aside the First-tier Tribunal’s (FTT) decision that expenditure incurred by Urenco on the construction of nuclear deconversion facility did not qualify for capital allowances. It also found that a drafting error originating in the Tax Law Rewrite Project had wrongly narrowed the scope of List C of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 s 23 (CAA 2001) and that on a proper construction of the provision expenditure incurred ‘on the provision of’ List C assets should qualify for capital allowances.
Urenco spent £1bn constructing a ‘tails management facility’ for the processing of depleted uranium tails....
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: