Hi,
In a furnished property rental business (not a holiday let) where the 10% wear and tear allowance is claimed - you can claim in addition for any fixtures integral to a property ie wash basins and baths - does any one know where you stand claiming for cost of a bath basket/shelf in a bathroom - it will be screwed to the wall.
I did have a conversation with HMRC regarding what was called a 'fixture' - and a curtain rail was used as an example - you could claim for the rail, but not the curtains - if they were the type you could remove, but of the curtains were the type you could not remove - and were integral to the rail - then you could claim.
So can we deduce that anything screwed to a wall is claimable (assuming it is not unscrewed and taken away, if you sell the property for example.
Thanks
Replies (8)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
I would say yes
It is my understanding, based on a recent course I attended, that fitted shelves are considered part of the property. I don't know how far that extends to "anything screwed to a wall" though, I presume if you attached a couch to the wall it would still be considered furniture.
Not sure re your couch
It is my understanding, based on a recent course I attended, that fitted shelves are considered part of the property. I don't know how far that extends to "anything screwed to a wall" though, I presume if you attached a couch to the wall it would still be considered furniture.
Not sure re your couch, I suspect it might depend how permanent the attachment, otherwise where do you draw the line?
We have (or should I say had) a window seat with box below in one of our bedrooms, this was purpose built (some years ago by my good self) and it was pretty well secured, as I know to my cost as have recently had to remove part of it for access into the roof void- only part because I have used such heavy countersunk screws into the wall and the floor that some of them no longer want to budge- I think a crowbar will be required to fully remove!!
So certainly imho a purpose built window seat is part of the fabric of the property if attached to the property, so where is the magic line?
In the same room is an Ikea wardrobe with a strap securing it to the wall (to avoid topple) but I would never consider that as part of the property, whereas in my workroom there is an old large cupboard unit (that started as a piece of bought furniture) now on its side, screwed to floor and wall, with a worktop fitted on top of it which I would now view as part of the fabric of the house, certainly as and when we sell the house it will be included in the sale.Yet above that workbench are four tool racks/ peg boards, fitted to the wall above the worktop, and if we sell the house they may well be coming with us.
It seems degree of permanence must be the deciding factor, but how many screws used to attach to the property does not appear defined
Hadn't expected such a debate!
I thought my remark quite flippant but there's some fair points raised here. I've always understood it as being the case that anything attached to the building that you would not reasonably expect someone to remove when moving house could be considered fixed. I think the whole set of rules and legislation regarding this is up for interpretation on a case by case basis and I believe it's subject to further change in the near future, my thoughts would be if you are reasonably confident it is part of the fabric of the building and not moveable furniture then claim for it and argue the toss if HMRC disagree, the legislation isn't clear enough that they could apply any penalties for deliberate misrepresentation.
Dividing line?
Not making a definitive technical statement, but a sensible dividing line would seem to be as follows.
Not whether it is fixed to the building (by however many screws) but whether it could be used elsewhere without difficulties. So the window seat is presumably fitted to the window space, so is unlikely to fit anywhere else. The same for cupboard with worktop (the worktop presumably being fitted to the space. Basically anything that would either damage the building (beyond screw holes) by its removal or that would need to be modified to be usable elsewhere.
Sound like a solid basis?
Well, on a no trade names basis....
Not making a definitive technical statement, but a sensible dividing line would seem to be as follows.
Not whether it is fixed to the building (by however many screws) but whether it could be used elsewhere without difficulties. So the window seat is presumably fitted to the window space, so is unlikely to fit anywhere else. The same for cupboard with worktop (the worktop presumably being fitted to the space. Basically anything that would either damage the building (beyond screw holes) by its removal or that would need to be modified to be usable elsewhere.
Sound like a solid basis?
Well, on a no trade names basis, because I would not want sued, that means most large flat pack furniture is part of the structure as half of it falls apart if one attempts to move it up or down a stair after it has been built; unless one dismantles it first, so it fails the "used elsewhere without difficulties" test.
I used to have a Northern European desk in one of the studies that we tried to turn to face the other wall, it ended up as a pile of bits on the floor and a new desk was thereafter required.
So, in drafting the legislation to define items that can be "used elsewhere without difficulties" I think you need a qualifying condition that, " notwithstanding the foregoing definition, crap made from chipboard which cannot be moved readily is by exception still deemed .........."
Just to expand the debate further, how would you consider an integrated Fridge Freezer? Can't easily be used elsewhere and typically would not be moved if a house was sold?