9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (12) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to the allowances if they can show that the expenditure in question was capital expenditure for the provision of new machinery or plant : see subsections (1) and (3). It was at one time a question in dispute whether the expenditure could properly be regarded as capital expenditure, but the Crown now concedes that it can be so regarded, and the only question remaining is whether it was expenditure on the provision of new machinery or plant. The processes used by the taxpayers in manufacturing their wallpaper and furnishing fabrics are described in detail in the case and were illustrated by a number of photographs. For the purposes of this judgment they can be summarized as follows : Patterns are printed on the wallpaper or fabri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordingly, many more designs are bought or produced than are adopted for immediate production. Thus, in 1963-64, only 79 of the 162 designs for fabrics and 127 of the 319 designs for wallpaper were adopted for immediate production. All the designs acquired or produced, whether or not adopted for immediate production, were filed in the taxpayers' library. Those not used for immediate production were thus available for reference, and might be selected by the styling committee for production, either without alteration or in an adapted form, in a later year. All designs were kept for a minimum of six years. Old designs were gone through every two years, and those which were more than six years old and were thought not to be worth retain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s words were, at page 658 : The next question is whether the horse which injured the plaintiff is ' plant ' within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act [the Employers' Liability Act, 1880]. There is no definition of plant in the Act : but, in its ordinary sense, it includes whatever apparatus is used by a business man for carrying on his business-not his stock-in-trade which he buys or makes for sale ; but all goods and chattels, fixed or movable, live or dead, which he keeps for permanent employment in his business : see Blake v. Shaw [1860] Johns. 732. Counsel for the Crown submitted that to fall within that definition the chattel in question must be nothing more than a material object. The designs in question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riter on which his opinions are typed. Similarly, the designs, which are the tools of the trade of the styling committee and many of which are scrapped after a few years, might, I should have thought, qualify as plant just as fully as the hand blocks, silk screens and rollers, many of which are periodically scrapped. But, having regard to the decision in Daphne v. Shaw [1926] 11 T. C. 256, I think that if any extension of the meaning of the word plant beyond a purely physical object is to be made, it ought to be made by a higher court. So I will proceed on the footing that these designs are not plant. The second question is : Can the cost of acquiring the designs be said to be expenditure on the provision of the blocks, scree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
