Stephen May, Stephen May and G May T/A S.C May v The Commissioners For Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, TC 06928
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Dr Christoper STAKER |
| Judgment Date | 10 January 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKFTT 0032 (TC) |
| Respondent | The Commissioners For Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs |
| Appellant | Stephen May, Stephen May and G May T/A S.C May |
| Reference | TC 06928 |
| Court | First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
[2019] UKFTT 0032 (TC)
TC06928
Appeal number:TC/2017/03948
TC/2017/03949
INCOME TAX – capital allowances – facility for drying, conditioning and
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
(1) STEPHEN MAY
(2) STEPHEN MAY AND G MAY
T/A S.C. MAY
Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
Respondents
REVENUE & CUSTOMS
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER STAKER
MR WILLIAM HAARER
Sitting in public at Exeter on 6 November 2018
Charles Bradley, counsel, for the Appellant
Simon Foxwell, Presenting Officer, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019
2
DECISION
Introduction
1. This is an appeal against closure notices dated 9 December 2016, relating to tax
years 2011-12 to 2013-14, in which HMRC concluded that expenditure incurred by
5
the Appellants on the construction of a facility for the purposes of drying,
conditioning and storing grain did not qualify for plant and machinery capital
allowances.
2. It is common ground between the parties that the only issues that the Tribunal is
called upon to decide in this appeal are (1) whether this facility is a “silo provided for
10
temporary storage” within the meaning of List C in s 23 of the Capital Allowances
meaning of s 11(4)(a) CAA. The parties have stated that they will be able between
themselves to calculate the correct tax consequences arising from the Tribunal’s
decision on those two issues.
15
3. During part of the period to which this appeal relates, the farming land in
question was farmed by Mr Stephen May as a sole trader, and during part of that
period it was farmed as a partnership. That is why there are two separate appeals by
different Appellants, but both sides agree that nothing turns on this. For convenience,
the Tribunal refers throughout the decision below to Mr May as “the Appellant”, and
20
such references are to be understood where appropriate as references to the
partnership.
Background facts
4. In 2010, after he had been in a farming partnership with his brother for some 10
years, the Appellant had the opportunity to set up his own business. A large part of
25
the new business involved grain production for sale to local farms and feed mills. The
Appellant now has 900 acres, of which 700 are arable.
5. For this new business, the Appellant required a facility for drying and
conditioning the grain that he grew after it had been harvested, and for storing the
grain until it was sold. He had this facility constructed on his land by Matthew
30
Croker Steel Framed Buildings (“Matthew Croker”) in about 2011. A quote provided
by Matthew Croker, dated 31 December 2010, is stated to be for the following: “to
manufacture and supply a Grain store building purposely designed for customer to
include control of temperature and moisture levels for grain”. The Appellant
contends in this appeal that the facility is a “silo”. HMRC consider it to be a
35
“building”. As its correct description is the central issue in dispute between the
parties, the Tribunal will refer to it below using the neutral expression “facility”.
6. In the tax returns to which this appeal relates, the Appellant claimed plant and
machinery allowances under Part 2 CAA in respect of the expenditure incurred in the
construction of the facility.
40
To continue reading
Request your trial