Maintenance & Repairs

[EngB1]

Hi

On my rental property i recently had the old wooden fascia boards replaced, this was due to a small leak on the roof which was repaired as they replaced the boards. My question is what can i claim against tax as i had the whole house replaced with plastic boards as the price was cost effective rather than just repair the section with wooden boards.

Cheers Nick.

[Telometer]

Assuming that you had not only recently started renting the property, then you can claim the full cost.

[EngB1]

Hi

Thanks for the answer, i had been renting the house out for 18 months so presume that will be long enough.

Cheers Nick

[Telometer]

As it seems to be knock on costs for repairing a leaking roof that sprung the leak post-acquisition then yes, they're probably allowable.

[nearlybutnotquiteright]

As it seems to be knock on costs for repairing a leaking roof that sprung the leak post-acquisition then yes, they're probably allowable.

This answer suggests that if there had been a leak pre acquistion, then it would not be allowable. This is not necessarily the case.
I presume you are referring the the Land Law Shipping case when you talk about pre/post acquisition need for repairs.
However, there is a conflicting case - Odeon Cinimas - which said that if the repairs and refurbishment post acquisition were part of normal wear and tear, then the costs of refurbishment were allowable.
For the case of the OP, the replacement of wooden boards with new PVC boards, the upgrade was merely incidental to the original repair and is allowable. However, this has nothing to do with pre/post acquistion repairs.

[Telometer]

This answer suggests that if there had been a leak pre acquistion, then it would not be allowable. This is not necessarily the case.

As usual, you are nearly, but not quite, right - couldn't have chosen a better name for yourself. The answer investigates whether the leak was pre-acquisition and concludes that as it doesn't appear to be then the sum is probably deductible.


I presume you are referring the the Land Law Shipping case when you talk about pre/post acquisition need for repairs.
However, there is a conflicting case - Odeon Cinimas - which said that if the repairs and refurbishment post acquisition were part of normal wear and tear, then the costs of refurbishment were allowable.

You're very good at being nearly, but not quite right, that's true.

Firstly the case is called Law Shipping - not Land Law Shipping.

Secondly Odeon Cinemas (sic) applied to a very particular set of circumstances where the value of the asset was not diminished by the state of repair, owing to the recent maintenance holiday that had resulted from the war.


http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/bim35450.htm makes the point very strongly that
You should treat repairs expenditure following a change in the persons carrying on a trade, where the change is treated as a cessation/commencement, as revenue expenditure if the asset was in an adequate state of repair at the time of change. If abnormally heavy repairs expenditure is incurred on an asset shortly after the change of ownership the likelihood that it is capital is increased. But expenditure recurring at intervals of a few years (for example exterior painting of a building which has been deferred by the previous owner but which in the normal course of events falls to be expended shortly after the building is acquired) should be allowed.


For the case of the OP, the replacement of wooden boards with new PVC boards, the upgrade was merely incidental to the original repair and is allowable. However, this has nothing to do with pre/post acquistion repairs.

There you are incorrect. If OP had acquired the property with a need for a complete refit also fixing the roof and replaced the fasciaboarding all prior to letting, then you would struggle very hard to obtain a revenue deduction. It has, therefore, everything to do with pre-post acquisition (sic) repairs.

[nearlybutnotquiteright]

Not sure what you are arguing about this time.

I have confirmed you are right in this instance. But your answer is misleading because you are implying in your second post on this suggests no pre aquisition repairs are allowable.

You then go on to say after I told you about Odean Cinemas that some pre aquisition repairs are allowable in specific circumstances.

You are right of course. Well done this time. Just be a bit more careful about your wording.

[Telometer]

Pre-acquisition repairs are the responsibility of the previous owner, and never deductible for the acquirer.

[mind the gap]

You are right of course. Well done this time. Just be a bit more careful about your wording.


And you learn to spell Odeon and you will be rightthistime!