Repair – capital or revenue expense?
Trying to establish whether a repair is an allowable trading expense or a capital deduction can be a minefield. It is a complex and grey area and causes many problems.
HMRC state that a repair means the restoration of an asset by replacing subsidiary parts of the whole asset. If there is a significant improvement of the asset, beyond its original condition this will be capital expenditure.
The recent case of Cairnsmill Caravan Park V HMRC has proven that each case has to be individually looked at according to the legislation.
Facts
- A family business claimed £89,210 for the cost of resurfacing a grassed area with hard-core materials.
- HMRC challenged the case arguing that it was an improvement and as such, a capital expense and not deductible.
Appellants arguments
- The whole park consists of 51 acres (the entirety) and the area in question covers 3 acres.
- The grass surface had deteriorated over a period of 50 years, and to restore the grass would have required the area to be left vacant for 2 holiday seasons to allow the grass to become re-stabilised. Instead the grass was replaced with a hard-core surface at a relatively cheap cost.
- The work was done outside the holiday season and while the pattern of business was maintained, it did not improve.
- The surface now resembles a car park and is much less aesthetically and environmentally pleasing.
- Annual maintenance costs have marginally increased but the erection of caravan awnings on the hard-core surface has been problematic.
- It is less suitable for children and there has been complaints from customers as a result of the change of surface.
- Two valuations were produced, one about one year before and the other three and a half years later and concluded that the value was not materially affected by the resurfacing works.
HMRC arguments
- The resurfacing was not a “like for like” replacement.
- There was greater durability and climatic resistance.
- The pitch generated 25% of the business income which was a large amount of the entirety (based on income levels and not surface area)
- The surface had to be excavated, replaced by entirely difference material and surfaced with gravel. In effect a new asset had been acquired.
Conclusion
- The tribunal found in favour of the taxpayer and the cost was allowed as a trading expense.
- This was due to the resurfaced area only being a very small part of the whole Caravan Park;
- The surface is not as suitable for children and has caused customer complaints;
- There is no suggestion of an improvement or resulting enhanced value
Please note: This article is a commentary on general principles and should not be interpreted as advice for your specific situation.
Share this
