https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188837 Expenditure incurred to resist nationalisation of a company's business and assets was treated by the majority as laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade because it was directed at preserving the trading business and profit-earning assets. On that basis, sums spent to prevent seizure of the business were regarded as deductible in computing trading profits. The contrary view was that spending to retain ownership and control of the business was not expenditure for the purposes of the trade. The commentary therefore turns on the distinction between protecting trading assets and preserving shareholder control, with deductibility accepted where the dominant purpose was trade preservation. en-us Tue, 01 Jun 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Dec 2016 14:54:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188837 Expenditure incurred to resist nationalisation of a company's business and assets was treated by the majority as laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade because it was directed at preserving the trading business and profit-earning assets. On that basis, sums spent to prevent seizure of the business were regarded as deductible in computing trading profits. The contrary view was that spending to retain ownership and control of the business was not expenditure for the purposes of the trade. The commentary therefore turns on the distinction between protecting trading assets and preserving shareholder control, with deductibility accepted where the dominant purpose was trade preservation. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 01 Jun 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188837