I stumbled on these today.
I found this on the actual UK Revenue site-
"Problems can arise with old assets over where is the dividing line between a repair and an improvement.
The fact that the method chosen is the cheapest and most effective is neutral. It does not deprive expenditure of its capital character. Replacing an object may be cheaper and better than patching and mending.
A repair or replacement of a part of the asset using modern materials may look like an improvement because of the greater durability, superior qualities, etc of the new material. If the new materials are broadly equivalent to the old materials then the cost is normally an allowable expense.
EXAMPLE:
Kate has the windows of her offices replaced. The old windows were singled glazed. She just wants to replace the old units. Building standards have improved and the types of replacement windows available from retailers have changed. The replacement windows are double-glazed. This shows the effect of changes in technology. At one time replacing single-glazed windows with double-glazed windows was regarded as an improvement and therefore capital expenditure. But times have changed. Double-glazing is now standard and is the modern equivalent. Replacing single-glazed windows by double-glazed equivalents counts as allowable expenditure on repairs."
And this is from a UK legal/tax advisory website.
[broken link removed]
"1. Look to claim costs as 'revenue' costs
If you can claim large costs as 'revenue' costs rather than 'capital' costs, then you can reduce your annual property income tax bill in a big way.
Sometimes it's easy to determine whether a cost is of a capital nature or not. For example, if you have had a new conservatory built, or even a new bedroom added, then this is clearly a capital expense. This is because it has increased the value of the property.
But sometimes distinguishing between the two costs isn't so clear.
Consider the replacement of windows. If you currently have rotten single glazed windows, then you will be able to replace them with UPVC double glazed windows and offset the entire cost against the rental income. There will be no need to class this as a 'capital cost'.
This is because it's generally accepted that standard windows used in modern properties are UPVC and not wooden single glazed windows, so you're replacing the current standard window fitting with a like-for-like window.
Remember that if you can class a cost as a 'revenue' cost, it will improve your cash flow as you will pay less property income tax."
What do you think?
Seems like a reasonable enough argument to me.
(although I would say that, wouldn't I?)