Share this content

Safety additions to rental property

Are additions for safety reasons still capital?

Didn't find your answer?

Hi all

I feel like I should be able to find this easily but oddly I can't...  Maybe because there is no special rule so I'm looking for something that doesn't exist and no-one has ever stated the rule doesn't exist because it doesn't exist..?

Say a landlord, for whatever reason, adds items for a disabled/frail tenant (rails/ramps) - capital additions, but is there anything that makes it revenue by virtue of it being for the benefit of a disabled/frail tenant?

I can't find anything, and I've never come across this before for personal tax (VAT yes, which is why I'm wondering if there is a special income tax rule).

Thanks all

Replies (4)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By David Ex
04th Jun 2021 15:01

Sadly, I suspect the answer is no but (and possibly not helpful if it’s already been bought and paid for) councils have funds for certain adaptations. Quite possibly this includes let property.

EDIT: Haven’t had a chance to read but this might have some useful pointers:

https://www.haart.co.uk/landlords/landlord-advice/accessible-or-adapted-...

Thanks (0)
Replying to David Ex:
Quack
By Constantly Confused
04th Jun 2021 15:50

Thanks, yes I found a few suggestions they could have obtained a grant but of course we only hear about things after they happen...

Thanks for your help.

Thanks (0)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
04th Jun 2021 20:51

Some things could be revenue, it really depends what was already there doing a function.

For instance if say you fitted voice activated light switches when there were already light switches I think you might have a case, or maybe a different door where there previously was one of same size but which now functions differently (opened one way before now opens both ways), but if you say enlarge a doorway then no, cannot see a revenue argument.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Tax Dragon
05th Jun 2021 07:43

Do the rails and ramps clip onto the property (to be removed when the current tenant goes), or are they an addition to the property (and will stay)?

When the government wants to provide tax relief for specific capital expenditure, the normal approach is to provide an allowance for said expenditure. It's tried and tested. It works. It's actually a much better system (for the taxpayer) than being forced to treat a cost as if it's something other than what it is.

Thanks (0)
Share this content