6 Mar 2006
ZETA ESTATES LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
- Citation
- ZETA ESTATES LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV191/2005
The Court held that the Board of Review's factual conclusion—that the appellant failed to prove the new shareholders loans were required for its business as working capital—was not perverse or unsupported by the evidence, and accordingly the appellant failed to show that interest on those loans was deductible under s16(1)(a). Although, on the assumed facts, replacement borrowing can give rise to deductible interest (following Roberts & Smith), the appellant did not meet its evidential burden, so the appeal was dismissed.