https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183785 A payment made to rescue a subsidiary and protect an existing trade was treated as revenue expenditure where, on a proper commercial analysis, it was not consideration for acquiring, improving, or disposing of a capital asset. The House of Lords held that the true nature of the transaction, not the taxpayer's motive alone, determined the character of the payment. Because the subsidiary shareholding was worthless and the sum was contributed to preserve the taxpayer's business from collapse, the payment was deductible in computing trading profits as revenue rather than capital expenditure. en-us Thu, 14 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:59:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183785 A payment made to rescue a subsidiary and protect an existing trade was treated as revenue expenditure where, on a proper commercial analysis, it was not consideration for acquiring, improving, or disposing of a capital asset. The House of Lords held that the true nature of the transaction, not the taxpayer's motive alone, determined the character of the payment. Because the subsidiary shareholding was worthless and the sum was contributed to preserve the taxpayer's business from collapse, the payment was deductible in computing trading profits as revenue rather than capital expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 14 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183785