Repair – capital or revenue expense?

02 December 2013

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.


  • 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.


  • 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.

Related articles

Follow our blog via email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.