In G Pratt & Sons v HMRC (TC01269 – 13 July), a farming partnership claimed a deduction for the cost of resurfacing the driveway at its farm. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that this was capital expenditure, but the First-tier Tribunal allowed the partnership’s appeal, holding that it was revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure.
Why it matters: The Tribunal accepted the partnership’s contention that the resurfacing of the driveway at its farm was revenue expenditure, and rejected HMRC’s contention that it should be treated as capital expenditure.
In G Pratt & Sons v HMRC (TC01269 – 13 July), a farming partnership claimed a deduction for the cost of resurfacing the driveway at its farm. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that this was capital expenditure, but the First-tier Tribunal allowed the partnership’s appeal, holding that it was revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure.
Why it matters: The Tribunal accepted the partnership’s contention that the resurfacing of the driveway at its farm was revenue expenditure, and rejected HMRC’s contention that it should be treated as capital expenditure.
90a1d87b-c1b5-43c3-a720-cd324830adee.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=1b2d0a7e_1)
