In Next Distribution v HMRC (FTC/94-96/2012 – 23 May 2014) the UT held that premises owned by the clothing company Next did not qualify as industrial buildings for the purposes of capital allowances (CAA 1990 s 18).
Two buildings were used to provide warehousing and distribution services to other companies of the Next Group as well as to third parties.
Next argued that the buildings constituted industrial buildings as they were used for the purpose of subjecting goods to a ‘process’ (s18(1)(e)) for the purpose of a trade which consisted in ‘storage’ (s18 (1)(f)(ii)) or for the purpose of the storage of goods on their arrival in the UK (s18(f)(iv).
Distinguishing the case from that of Buckingham v Securitas [1980] 1 WLR 380 the UT observed that unpacking bulk deliveries and repackaging them in smaller packages for retail outlets and online customers did not amount...
90a1d87b-c1b5-43c3-a720-cd324830adee.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=1b2d0a7e_1)
