The decision considered whether certain expenditure was capital or revenue.
The FTT has now handed down a supplementary judgment which considers whether
In its original judgment (PDF 3.27 MB), the FTT held that:
The FTT then adjourned proceedings to allow the partnerships and HMRC to agree revised figures. At the time we had assumed that the direction to agree revised figures meant that the impairment of the IFAs would be deductible for tax purposes and so generate a trading loss (albeit considerably smaller than that originally claimed) which could be offset by the partners against their other income.
It appears that the partnership thought likewise. However, HMRC did not, taking the alternative view that the IFAs represented capital expenditure and so any impairment should
The question of whether certain expenditure falls to be properly treated as capital or revenue is one of those areas of the law which is highly
“an intellectual minefield in which the principles are elusive…analogies are treacherous…precedents appear to be vague signposts pointing in different directions…and the direction finder is said to be the ‘judicial common sense”
HMRC’s argument was relatively straight-forward: the assets were IFAs for accounting purposes and so for tax purposes they were assets acquired for the enduring benefit of the trade.
The partnership’s argument relied firstly on the absurdity of no deduction being available (quickly dispatched by the judge) and the distinction between fixed and floating capital (the expenditure of floating capital being tax deductible).
There is no correct approach to answering the question of capital versus revenue and, over the years various judges have formulated different approaches in reaching their conclusions. The FTT looked at the main authorities in turn before applying them to the facts of the case before it. Ultimately in finely balanced cases like
“It is with misgivings and reluctance that we conclude that the rights were capital in nature. The period over which the rights were to play a part in the business of the company is the factor which has weighed most heavily in reaching this conclusion despite the fact that the rights were ordinary commercial contracts and were the source of income rather than the setting in which it was generated.
We understand that the partnership intends to appeal.
For more information, contact a tax professional with the KPMG member firm in the UK:
Seamus Murphy | Seamus.email@example.com
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.