Determining objectives of obtaining capital allowances

Table of contents

• Original news
• What was this case about?
• What has the Court of Appeal decided, and why?
• What is the distinction drawn out in the judgment between a ‘main benefit’ test and a ‘main object’ test?
• Does this help us to better understand how to construe anti-avoidance legislation? How important is the contribution made by this case to the case-law in this area?
• Do you expect Lloyds to appeal (before the case is remitted to the FTT)?
• Where does this case leave the role of targeted anti-avoidance rules (TAARs) in the tax code? And how important do you think they will be in the future now that we have the general anti-abuse rule (GAAR)?
• What do you think the practical implications of this ruling might be?

Article summary

Tax analysis: What is the correct test to determine the objectives of obtaining capital allowances? Heather Self of Pinsent Masons says the Court of Appeal’s decision in Lloyds TSB Equipment Leasing emphasises the importance of findings of fact in the First-tier Tribunal.