Mark Shaw (as nominated member of TAL CPT Land Development Partnership LLP) v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2021] UKUT 0100 (TCC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Miles,Judge Timothy Herrington |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] UKUT 0100 (TCC) |
| Subject Matter | 28 April 2021 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Published date | 28 April 2021 |
[2021] UKUT 0100 (TCC)
Appeal number: UT/2019 /0108
INCOME TAX– industrial building allowances - buildings ceased to be used by
previous owner and sold - new owner intended to let buildings but unable to find a
suitable tenant-buildings sold without having been brought back into use -whether
or not period of ownership amounted to a period of temporary disuse– ss 271,285
Capital Allowances Act 2001
UPPER TRIBUNAL
TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER
TRIBUNAL:
Mr Justice Miles
Judge Timothy Herrington
Sitting in public by way of remote video hearing, treated as taking place in
London, on 25 March 2021
Julian Ghosh QC and Emma Pearce, Counsel, instructed by Ashurst LLP,
Solicitors, for the Appellant
Julian Hickey, Counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM
Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021
MARK SHAW
(as nominated member of TAL CPT Land Development Partnership LLP)
Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
Respondents
REVENUE & CUSTOMS
2
DECISION
Introduction
1. This is an appeal by the appellant, Mark Shaw, in his capacity as nominated member
of TAL CPT Land Development Partnership LLP (“TAL”) against the decision of the
First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) (Judge Philip Gillett and Member Jane Shillaker) released
on 26 April 2019 (the “Decision”).
2. The FTT dismissed TAL’s appeal against the following closure notices and
amendments to TAL’s partnership statement:
Year
Description
Date of Issue
Amount (£)
2004-05
Closure notice and amendment
3 Dec 2015
658,846
2005-06
Partnership discovery assessment
19 Nov 2009
2,555,820
2006-07
Closure notice and amendment
3 Dec 2015
10,315,324
3. The figures shown above represent the amount of writing down allowances and
balancing allowances (both of which are Industrial Building Allowances (“IBAs”)
claimed and disallowed in the partnership computation of allowable losses as a
consequence of HMRC’s decisions.
4. TAL claimed the allowances in question in respect of accounting periods ended 31
March 2005 to 31 March 2007 on the basis that although the buildings concerned were
not being used at the time of their acquisition by TAL, the previous owner having
ceased to use them following the closure of its business at the site where the buildings
stood, TAL nevertheless intended to bring the buildings back into use by finding
suitable tenants to occupy them. Accordingly, TAL contended that it should be entitled
to the allowances on the basis that the buildings were not to be regarded as ceasing to
have been used because they were “temporarily out of use” within s 285 of the Capital
Allowances Act 2001 (“CAA 2001”) up to the point that TAL decided to cease their
efforts to use the buildings and sell them.
5. The respondent (“HMRC”) disallowed TAL’s claims on the basis that the buildings
in respect of which the allowances were claimed did not meet the definition of
“industrial buildings” in s 271 CAA 2001. In particular, HMRC contended that the
buildings were not “temporarily out of use” within s 285 CAA 2001, at any time during
TAL’s period of ownership because a period of actual use is required at both ends of a
period of temporary disuse. HMRC contend that if, as was the case here, the building
To continue reading
Request your trial