Senex Investments Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, TC 04312
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | W Ruthven GEMMELL |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] UKFTT 0107 (TC) |
| Respondent | The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs |
| Appellant | Senex Investments Ltd |
| Reference | TC 04312 |
| Court | First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
[2015] UKFTT 0107 (TC)
TC04312
Appeal number: TC/2014/01901 & TC/2014/03392
CAPITAL ALLOWANCES – Business Premises Renovation Allowance - whether
a former Church was a Qualifying Building as last been used for the purposes of a
trade, profession or vocation – yes - whether a Vestry used as an office [whether or
not for the purposes of a trade, profession or vocation] – yes. Capital Allowances
Act 2001 Section 360C – Appeal allowed.
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
SENEX INVESTMENTS LTD Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S Respondents
REVENUE & CUSTOMS
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE RUTHVEN GEMMELL,WS
MR IAN M P CONDIE, CA
Sitting in public at George House, 126 George Street, Edinburgh on 9 February
2015
Philip Simpson, QC for the Appellant
Stephen O’Rourke, Advocate instructed by the Office of the Advocate General
for Scotland for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2015
2
DECISION
1. This is an appeal by Senex Investments Limited (“Senex”), a property leasing
company, against the refusal by the Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs 5 (“HMRC”) to grant a claim for Business Premises Renovation Allowance (“BPRA”)
under Section 36A of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 (CAA) for the periods ended
30 September 2011, 30 September 2012 and 31 December 2012. The relevant tax
amounts to £36,703.
2. HMRC’s decision to disallow the claim for BPRA was intimated to Senex on 10 9 January and 14 March 2014.
3. A written Statement of Case and Skeleton Argument was submitted by HMRC
and a Skeleton Argument submitted by Senex.
4. The Tribunal had before them, in addition, a Bundle of Authorities and also a
Witness Statement of Mr Colin McLean Beattie (“CB”) a shareholder and director of 15 Senex who gave evidence and was a credible and reliable witness.
5. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the premises purchased and partially
redeveloped by Senex had last been used for the purposes of a trade, profession or
vocation for the purposes of Section 360C of the CAA and, in the alternative, whether
the claim should be allowed pro rata to the extent that part of the premises was used 20 as an office.
Legislation
6. See Appendix 1.
Cases referred to
7. See Appendix 2. 25
The Facts
8. Senex is a limited company, investing in property, owning a number of
bars/restaurants, residential property and offices.
9. CB, as a director of Senex, is involved in seeking investment opportunities and
running the company’s business. 30
10. Senex owns a number of public houses, one of which was situated next door to a
former church at 1 Montrose Street, Clydebank. This church (“the Premises”) had
been derelict for a number of years, having been sold to a property company who
were unsuccessful in obtaining planning permission to develop it. The public house
had been owned since 2003 and let out so that CB was not often at the premises but he 35 was aware of the potential of purchasing the adjacent church (“the Premises”).
To continue reading
Request your trial