»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp courts decided in Southern v Borax Consolidated Ltd [1940] 23TC597 (see BIM35540) that the cost of preserving a taxpayer’s title to an asset was allowable. An extension of this is to allow the costs of defending title to all of the taxpayer’s assets.

Morgan v Tate & Lyle Ltd [1954] 35TC367 was concerned with the expenses of an anti-nationalisation campaign. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp company incurred expenses on a campaign designed to show that nationalisation of the sugar refining industry would be harmful to workers, consumers and stockholders alike. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp Commissioners found that the company’s primary purpose was to prevent the loss of its business and to preserve its assets intact. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýappre was considerable difference of judicial opinion. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp majority view was that just as the expense of Borax Consolidated defending the ownership of one asset was allowable so must the expense of Tate & Lyle defending the ownership of all the assets of its trade. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýappre was no question of the acquisition or improvement of any capital asset.