Propose a change

Capital Allowances Act 2001

Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.

Change 1

What to do with it
As published

481 Anti-avoidance: limit on qualifying expenditure

(1) In the two cases given below, the amount (if any) by which the capital expenditure incurred by a person (“the buyer”) on the purchase of patent rights exceeds the relevant limit is to be left out of account in determining the buyer’s qualifying expenditure. (2) The first case is where the buyer and the seller are connected with each other. (3) The second case is where it appears that the sole or main benefit which (but for this section) might have been expected to accrue to the parties from— (a) the sale, or (b) transactions of which the sale is one, was obtaining an allowance under this Part. (4) If the seller is required to bring a disposal value into account under this Part because of the sale, the relevant limit is that disposal value. (5) If subsection (4) does not apply but the seller— (a) receives a capital sum on the sale, and (b) is chargeable to tax in respect of that sum in accordance with section 587 of ITTOIA 2005 or section 912 of CTA 2009, the relevant limit is that sum. (6) If neither subsection (4) nor subsection (5) applies, the relevant limit is whichever of the following is the smallest— (a) the market value of the rights; (b) if the seller incurred capital expenditure on acquiring the rights, the amount of that expenditure; (c) if a person connected with the seller incurred capital expenditure on acquiring the rights, the amount of that expenditure.

Your change, as a redline

481 Anti-avoidance: limit on qualifying expenditure

(1) In the two cases given below, the amount (if any) by which the capital expenditure incurred by a person (“the buyer”) on the purchase of patent rights exceeds the relevant limit is to be left out of account in determining the buyer’s qualifying expenditure. (2) The first case is where the buyer and the seller are connected with each other. (3) The second case is where it appears that the sole or main benefit which (but for this section) might have been expected to accrue to the parties from— (a) the sale, or (b) transactions of which the sale is one, was obtaining an allowance under this Part. (4) If the seller is required to bring a disposal value into account under this Part because of the sale, the relevant limit is that disposal value. (5) If subsection (4) does not apply but the seller— (a) receives a capital sum on the sale, and (b) is chargeable to tax in respect of that sum in accordance with section 587 of ITTOIA 2005 or section 912 of CTA 2009, the relevant limit is that sum. (6) If neither subsection (4) nor subsection (5) applies, the relevant limit is whichever of the following is the smallest— (a) the market value of the rights; (b) if the seller incurred capital expenditure on acquiring the rights, the amount of that expenditure; (c) if a person connected with the seller incurred capital expenditure on acquiring the rights, the amount of that expenditure.

One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".

Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.

A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.

Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.

Sign in to file it

Think it through

Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.

Questions to start with
Think it through
Legal information from the published text, not advice for your case. Check the sources. Find a law · What the register holds