header-logo header-logo

REVENUE LAW

31 May 2007
Issue: 7275 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v William Grant & Sons Distillers Ltd; Small (Inspector of Taxes) v Mars UK Ltd [2007] UKHL 15, [2007] 2 All ER 440

Where the depreciation in fixed assets which related to the production of goods sold during the year or in assets which were not used for production has been deducted from revenue in the profit and loss account, s 74(1)(f) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 does not require that, in computing profits for tax purposes, the depreciation in fixed assets which relate to the production of unsold stocks carried forward as part of the cost of unsold stocks should be added back.

The relevant accounting standard lays down a general requirement that the year’s depreciation shown in the balance sheet should be deducted in that year’s profit and loss account but makes an exception whereby it is permissible to carry forward an appropriate part of the depreciation as part of the cost of stocks, to be deducted as and when the stocks are sold in a future year.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
The threat of section 21 ‘no fault’ eviction was banished this week, after the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 passed into law
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
back-to-top-scroll