Case A25

Judges:
AM Donovan Ch
JD Davies M
GR Thompson M

Court:
No. 2 Board of Review

Judgment date: 18 April 1969.

---

A. M. Donovan (Chairman): I am in agreement with the decision of my colleague, Mr. Davies. For the reasons adopted by him, the property in respect of which depreciation is claimed is not ``articles''. In my opinion, it is truly to be regarded as part of a building which does no more than provide the setting for the activities therein conducted, and for that reason it does not fall within the description of ``plant''.

2. The adoption of this somewhat negative approach stems from the difficulty which is apparent from an examination of the authorities of definitively describing ``plant''. However, even on the widest view of the meaning of the word, I have no hesitation in saying that it does not comprehend the property with which we are concerned.

3. Since the property is neither ``plant'' nor ``articles'' within the meaning of sec. 54, depreciation is not allowable and the Commissioner's decision on the objection should be upheld.