Capital allowances

FORTHCOMING CHANGES: At Budget 2025, the government announced the introduction through Finance Bill 2026 of:

  1. a reduction in the rate of writing-down allowances on main pool plant and machinery from 18% to 14% with effect from 1 April 2026 for corporation tax purposes and 6 April 2026 for income tax purposes—this affects both companies and unincorporated businesses with pools of main rate expenditure (eg those with expenditure that does not qualify for, or pre-dates, the introduction of first-year allowances (FYAs) such as the super-deduction and full expensing)

  2. a new 40% FYA for qualifying main rate expenditure incurred from 1 January 2026 that has reduced restrictions compared with other FYAs—this is expected to be beneficial primarily for expenditure that is not otherwise eligible for the £1m annual investment allowance (AIA) or existing FYAs (such as full expensing)—the 40% FYA will apply to all businesses (not only companies) and it will include expenditure on assets used for leasing (but not overseas leasing), but expenditure on cars and second-hand assets will be excluded, and

  3. an extension to the 100% green first-year allowances for qualifying expenditure on zero-emission cars and

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Tax News

Upper Tribunal denies EIS relief as trade not commenced (Putney Power and Piston Heating v HMRC)

Tax analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) has held that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (the FTT) made a material error of law in its approach to determining when a trade has ‘begun to be carried on’ by a company for the purposes of qualifying for Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) relief under section 179(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007). The FTT had identified a set of principles by reference to factors which were of relevance in previous cases and applied those ‘legal’ principles to determine that neither Putney Power Limited (‘Putney’) nor Piston Hearing Services Ltd (‘Piston’) had begun to carry on a trade by the relevant date of 4 April 2018. The UT set aside the FTT’s decision on the basis that the FTT had sought to apply a principles-based test which did not exist as a matter of law. The proper approach requires a multi-factorial evaluation of all of the circumstances in the case at hand. The UT re-made the decision but ultimately reached the same conclusion as the FTT, dismissing the appeals of both Putney and Piston and holding that neither company had commenced trading by the relevant date. The decision is significant because it clarifies that there is no strict legal test for when a trade commences: the question remains highly fact sensitive and will be determined by reference to the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Written by Kate Ison (partner at Macfarlanes LLP) and Victoria Braid (associate at macfarlanes LLP).

View Tax by content type :

Popular documents