Taxation Law
© 2012 Reed International Books Australia Pty Limited trading as LexisNexis. Ancillary for Understanding Taxation Law 2012 by Gilders, Taylor, Walpole, Burton and Ciro
Understanding Taxation Law 2012 by Gilders, Taylor, Walpole, Burton, Ciro Suggested answers to Activities and Questions by Tony Ciro Chapter 10: Capital Allowances
© 2012 Reed International Books Australia Pty Limited trading as LexisNexis Permission to download and make copies for classroom use is granted. Reproducing or distributing any material from this website for any other purpose requires written permission from the Publisher.
Question 10.1
1. Would the moveable partitions in the Imperial Chemical Industries case be plant? Would the moveable partitions have been ‘articles’? What would have been the result in the Imperial Chemical Industries case if the partitions and the ceilings had formed one modular moveable unit? 2. In Div 43, the definition of ‘capital works’ includes ‘structural improvements, or extensions, alterations or improvements to structural improvements’. Would the moveable partitions be ‘capital works’ for purposes of Div 43? If they were not capital works, do we need to know whether or not they are plant to obtain Div 40 deductions in respect of expenditure on them? 3. Should the external cladding of the dye-house in Wangaratta Woollen Mills have been regarded as plant? Under the current law, assuming that the external cladding was a structural improvement, why is it important to determine whether or not it was plant? 4. Would any of the following be ‘plant’: (i) a drive-through car wash (ii) a cool room in a liquor shop (iii) a lift well (iv) a soundproof TV studio.
1. The moveable partitions in the Imperial Chemical Industries case would most likely be considered to be plant or articles as opposed to fixtures and fittings. This is because the moveable partitions are not ‘fixed’ to the building and, as such, could not ordinarily be considered part of the fixtures and
Understanding Taxation Law 2012 by Gilders, Taylor, Walpole, Burton, Ciro Suggested answers to Activities and Questions by Tony Ciro Chapter 10: Capital Allowances
© 2012 Reed International Books Australia Pty Limited trading as LexisNexis Permission to download and make copies for classroom use is granted. Reproducing or distributing any material from this website for any other purpose requires written permission from the Publisher.
Question 10.1
1. Would the moveable partitions in the Imperial Chemical Industries case be plant? Would the moveable partitions have been ‘articles’? What would have been the result in the Imperial Chemical Industries case if the partitions and the ceilings had formed one modular moveable unit? 2. In Div 43, the definition of ‘capital works’ includes ‘structural improvements, or extensions, alterations or improvements to structural improvements’. Would the moveable partitions be ‘capital works’ for purposes of Div 43? If they were not capital works, do we need to know whether or not they are plant to obtain Div 40 deductions in respect of expenditure on them? 3. Should the external cladding of the dye-house in Wangaratta Woollen Mills have been regarded as plant? Under the current law, assuming that the external cladding was a structural improvement, why is it important to determine whether or not it was plant? 4. Would any of the following be ‘plant’: (i) a drive-through car wash (ii) a cool room in a liquor shop (iii) a lift well (iv) a soundproof TV studio.
1. The moveable partitions in the Imperial Chemical Industries case would most likely be considered to be plant or articles as opposed to fixtures and fittings. This is because the moveable partitions are not ‘fixed’ to the building and, as such, could not ordinarily be considered part of the fixtures and