28 June 2024
Altrad Services Ltd and another v HMRC [2024]EWCA Civ 720
As Sir Launcelot Henderson says in the opening paragraph of his judgment: “These appeals concern a marketed tax avoidance scheme under which the 2 taxpayer companies sought to exploit the UK capital allowance legislation.. in a way which was designed to bring about a substantial increase in their pools of expenditure on (their existing ) plant and machinery qualifying for allowances” without actually incurring any further expenditure, and could do so every 3 weeks again and again. This “magic” result, was clearly contrary to the whole purpose of capital allowance legislation, and following the Supreme Court in Rossendale v Hurstwood [2021]UKSC16, it was necessary to construe the legislation purposively, and “no rational legislature could have intended traders with existing allowances to be permitted to increase the amount of their capital allowances in such a way”.
The Court of Appeal unanimously decided in favour of HMRC, reversing the judgment of the Upper Tribunal, and on 29th November 2024, the Supreme Court refused the taxpayers permission to appeal, on the basis that “the application does not raise an arguable point of law”.
David Milne KC and Barbara Belgrano appeared for HMRC.
You can find a copy of the judgment here.
This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of PCTC or by PCTC as a whole.
