‘The UK tax tribunal has found that HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) acted unreasonably in revoking certain approvals of an excise warehousekeeper, in a case concerning logistics provider Kammac plc and ordered HMRC to conduct a further review of its decision.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th April 2019
‘This case is a reminder, if any were needed, of the difficulties facing Claimants in deciding whether or not to pursue multiple Defendants.’
Zenith PI, 10th September 2018
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
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  UKHL 54;  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
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.