I think Revenue are likely to view the bathroom replacement as capital expenditure on a property improvement.
Demonstrating that it constitutes a "repair" or "maintenance" would seem challenging.
With respect that’s absurd.
If what’s there after the work is done, is relatively bog standard (pardon the pun) how can anyone form the view that it’s improvement of the property (in the specific context of improving beyond the original state / spec).
There’s a certain amount of case law in relation to this issue. One example cited is the replacement of old single glazed windows, with double glazing. Now that is clearly an improvement, but advancement in standard materials means that such a replacement would be accepted as a repair.
This would never happen in the real world but how this would theoretically play out is as follows:
- Joe Bloggs spends money as per the OP.
- For whatever reason, Revenue enquire about the rental deductions.
- Joe explains he had replaced the various bathroom fittings, tiling etc, and repainted and has paperwork evidencing the expenditure.
- Revenue official decides (based on nothing evidential) to classify some proportion as capital and disallow deduction for that part.
- Taxpayer appeals as they’re entitled to.
- Eventually, a couple of years later, the matter comes before a Tax Appeal Commissioner (a quite bemused one no doubt, given the relatively trivial amount involved).
- The taxpayer gives evidence that the old bathroom had become unsatisfactory from wear & tear, leaks, breakage, or whatever.
- Revenue has zero evidence to the contrary.
- Appeal Commissioner has to have regard to the taxpayers evidence and, even more bemused than they were at the outset, they find in the taxpayers favour.