The issues involved in the Urenco case are all interrelated because they boil down to the demarcation between plant or machinery on the one hand, and buildings or structures on the other. The UT reversed much of the FTT’s decision, resulting in confusion as to what constitutes a building. The CA decided that the UT had over-stepped the mark in deciding that the FTT had erred in law and reversed most of the UT’s decision. However, as a result of concluding that there is a drafting error within the capital allowances legislation, the CA remitted certain issues back to the FTT, which means the uncertainty continues.
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
The issues involved in the Urenco case are all interrelated because they boil down to the demarcation between plant or machinery on the one hand, and buildings or structures on the other. The UT reversed much of the FTT’s decision, resulting in confusion as to what constitutes a building. The CA decided that the UT had over-stepped the mark in deciding that the FTT had erred in law and reversed most of the UT’s decision. However, as a result of concluding that there is a drafting error within the capital allowances legislation, the CA remitted certain issues back to the FTT, which means the uncertainty continues.
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
