Burnley Hall LLP v Domicilium Limited (Chancery Division, 14 November 2017) – Falcon Chambers

Posted December 8th, 2017 in arbitration, capital allowances, leases, news by sally

‘Burnley Hall brought a claim for specific performance of a put option agreement. The agreement was part of a broader transaction by which the claimant, a limited liability partnership, entered into a joint venture for the development of student accommodation. The venture was entered into on condition that Business Premises Renovation Allowances (under Part 3A of the Capital Allowances Act 2001) would be available and in the event that they were not, Burnley Hall secured the right to extricate itself from the transaction by exercising a put option to require the defendants to take back the leases they had granted and to repay the sums invested by the individuals behind the LLP.’

Full Story

Falcon Chambers, 14th November 2017

Source: www.falcon-chambers.com

Tower MCashback LLP 1 and another v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily

Tower MCashback LLP 1 and another v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2011] UKSC 19;  [2011] WLR (D)  154

“At the hearing of a taxpayer’s appeal against a closure notice determining an inquiry into a limited liability partnership’s tax return, the revenue was not confined to relying on the precise reasons for the decision given by the investigating officer in his closure notice.”

WLR Daily, 11th May 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed

Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – Times Law Reports

Posted September 2nd, 2008 in capital allowances, corporation tax, law reports, warehousing by sally

Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

House of Lords

“Expenditure on a warehouse which was used for storage of goods which the taxpayer was in the business of importing and selling was not expenditure on an industrial building so as to qualify under section 18 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990.”

The Times, 2nd September 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily

Posted August 4th, 2008 in capital allowances, corporation tax, law reports, warehousing by sally

Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2008] UKHL 54; [2008] WLR (D) 281

“The expenditure on a warehouse building which was used for storage of goods which the taxpayer was in the business of importing and selling was not expenditure on an industrial building and therefore did not qualify as a capital allowance under s 18 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990.”

WLR Daily, 1st August 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v. Smallwood – Times Law Reports

Posted June 7th, 2007 in capital allowances, income tax, law reports by sally

Act does not operate to curb enterprise zone losses

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Smallwood

Court of Appeal

“Section 41(2) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 did not operate to restrict allowable losses that would otherwise have accrued in respect of a taxpayer’s units in an enterprise zone property unit trust when he received distributions that gave rise to a deemed disposal under section 122 of that Act.”

The Times, 7th June 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.