Another ‘plant’ case, another taxpayer victory

As always with court and tribunal decisions concerning the definition of ‘plant’, the case of May v HMRC (2019) TC06928 is of interest both at a specific level and because of its broader implications.

The specific interest concerns the narrow point of whether a grain silo can qualify for plant and machinery allowances. The broader question is how we should determine which other assets can so qualify – and this case still offers new insights more than 130 years after the meaning of plant was pondered in Yarmouth v France [1887] 4 TRL 1 (in a different legal context, as this was before the introduction of capital allowances).

Our recent article for ICAEW’s TAXline begins with a refresher of the legal path we must follow when this issue arises. It then looks at the issues arising in relation to the silo, exploring the broader ramifications of the case.  All statutory references are to the Capital Allowances Act 2001.

Read the rest of the article here.