27 Jul 2016
Expenditure incurred obtaining resource consents that materially advanced specific capital projects constituted capital expenditure and was not deductible under s DA2 even though the projects were not yet committed to construction; s DA1 (nexus) was satisfied but the capital limitation applied.
18 May 2016
The settlement did not convey a separate 'right to use land' but varied and removed a restrictive encumbrance (a chose in action) thereby restoring ANZCO's inherent ownership rights; those restored rights run with the fee simple estate and do not have a finite useful life or reasonable expectation of declining value while used, so the payment was capital and not depreciable intangible property under the Income Tax Act 2007; the Commissioner's assessments are confirmed.
19 Jun 2015
Expenditure was capital in nature because it was incurred to extend Trustpower's profit‑making structure by advancing potential generation projects in its development pipeline and to secure valuable resource consents (enduring capital options); therefore the deductions under s DA 1 were disallowed and the Commissioner's reassessments confirmed; the classification of particular post-commitment items is remitted to the High Court.
12 Nov 2013
Resource consents obtained by TrustPower for the four pipeline projects are not stand-alone assets separable from the projects; they are components of project feasibility work. Expenditure incurred in obtaining those consents formed part of recurrent feasibility expenditure in the development pipeline and is revenue in nature and deductible under the general permission (s DA1). Section DB13B and depreciation provisions do not mandate treating such consent costs as capital. Even if consents were treated as stand-alone assets, application of the BP Australia indicia and accounting recognition t…
5 Mar 2003
Item 7 of Schedule 17 ('the right to use a trademark') denotes a separable right of use typically held by a licensee, not the ownership interest in a trademark; trademark ownership is potentially indefinite and therefore does not qualify as 'depreciable intangible property' with a finite useful life, so the trustees could not claim depreciation on the ownership rights they retained while granting exclusive licences.