Skip to content 
Capital allowances on preparatory costs have long been a point of uncertainty for businesses investing in large-scale infrastructure projects. A recent landmark case has clarified that such early-stage expenditure, including environmental and technical studies, can qualify for capital allowances when directly linked to the eventual installation of qualifying plant and machinery.
This development is particularly relevant to businesses in the renewable energy, construction, and utilities sectors, where significant investment often occurs well before a project becomes operational. Understanding the scope of qualifying expenditures could lead to substantial tax relief and improved capital investment planning.
Why Capital Allowances on Preparatory Costs Matter
Capital allowances offer tax relief on specific types of capital expenditure, enabling businesses to deduct the cost of qualifying assets from their taxable profits. While it’s clear that physical assets, such as machinery, plant, and integral features, qualify, the status of preliminary or preparatory costs has often been disputed—especially where the expenditure does not result in a tangible asset.
In this context, businesses investing in development projects—particularly those related to offshore energy—often incur substantial costs for environmental assessments, technical feasibility reports, noise and radar interference studies, and geological surveys. Until recently, there was ambiguity over whether such costs were eligible for capital allowances or should be treated as non-deductible.
The Case That Changed the Game
In a decisive Court of Appeal ruling, it was held that preparatory studies and surveys carried out prior to construction could be classified as qualifying expenditures. This was based on the fact that they were incurred “on the provision of” the plant and machinery later installed as part of the wind farm infrastructure.
This includes costs related to:
- Environmental and impact assessments
- Geotechnical and seascape surveys
- Noise and radar interference modelling
- Ornithological and collision risk studies
- Telecoms and navigational impact reports
The court found that these were essential for the safe and informed design, siting, and installation of the wind turbines and associated infrastructure, making them eligible for relief under capital allowances legislation.
What Does “On the Provision Of” Really Mean?
One of the key points clarified in this case is how to interpret the phrase “expenditure on the provision of plant and machinery.” It does not mean the cost must result in the direct acquisition or physical construction of an asset. Rather, it includes costs incurred as a necessary part of making the installation or use of that asset possible.
This interpretation facilitates a more practical and realistic understanding of the requirements for major infrastructure projects, where advance assessments and risk evaluations are crucial. The capital allowances legislation, therefore, can accommodate the reality of modern project planning.
Not All Costs Qualify: Revenue vs Capital Distinction Still Applies
While the ruling significantly broadens what is considered “qualifying expenditure,” it also draws a clear line between capital and revenue costs. The court confirmed that these preparatory costs are of a capital nature and, therefore, not deductible as a revenue expense under the trading expense rules.
This means businesses must ensure that these costs are correctly capitalised on the balance sheet and included in their capital allowances claim rather than being treated as deductible business expenses in their profit and loss accounts.
Implications for Tax Returns and Closure Notices
Another significant outcome is the tribunal’s ability to revise entries in tax returns—even where HMRC’s closure notices did not specifically amend those figures. This provides a pathway for businesses to revisit previously disallowed claims where preparatory expenditure was excluded, potentially unlocking retrospective relief.
It also places a greater onus on tax compliance and documentation. Businesses must maintain detailed records linking preparatory studies to the eventual installation or design of qualifying plants and machinery. Robust project documentation and accounting treatment will be essential to support any claims made under these clarified rules.
Broader Industry Impact
This ruling is likely to influence not only energy sector projects but any large-scale development requiring significant advance studies. It reinforces the position that where preparatory work is critical to the later functioning of an asset, it forms part of the asset’s provision.
Industries such as data centres, logistics hubs, transport infrastructure, and manufacturing may also benefit from reassessing their capital expenditure under this updated interpretation. The same logic can also be applied to technical assessments for factory layouts, noise regulation reports, or specialist impact analyses conducted before equipment installation.
This clarification on capital allowances on preparatory costs represents a major win for UK businesses investing in infrastructure and green energy. It provides certainty in an area that has long been contentious and unlocks potentially significant tax savings on development costs that were previously treated as sunk or disallowed.
Businesses now have a clear basis for including many early-stage project expenses in their capital allowances claims, thereby improving cash flow and the commercial viability of major investments.