Ry owns a commercial building and leased his premises to John to conduct a bakery business. Under the lease contract, John is obliged to repair any modified or damaged parts of the building after the lease term. However, John fails to repair Gary's building, which was damaged due to machinery and fixtures' instalments. John agreed to pay Gary $3,100 to cover the repair expenses.

Required:

With reference to relevant legislation and case law discuss the tax treatment of this payment for Gary. (10 marks, maximum 300 words)

Question

SAT

Shyla Moreno

16 August, 05:10

Ry owns a commercial building and leased his premises to John to conduct a bakery business. Under the lease contract, John is obliged to repair any modified or damaged parts of the building after the lease term. However, John fails to repair Gary's building, which was damaged due to machinery and fixtures' instalments. John agreed to pay Gary $3,100 to cover the repair expenses.

Required:

With reference to relevant legislation and case law discuss the tax treatment of this payment for Gary. (10 marks, maximum 300 words)

+5

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Irvin Smith · Answer 1

See explaination

Explanation:

The Issue : Gary being the lessor that leased his commercial property to John to conduct bakery business with an obligation to repair modified or damaged parts if any after lease term. However, John couldnt repair the same but paid $3,100 to Gary to cover the repair expenses.

The Legislation : The required Provision says that lessee is reponsible to keep the premises in good condition and to handover back to the lessor in the same condition as it was in the beginning of the lease period except normal wear and tear. Here damage to the building was not due to passage of time or Act of God. It was due to installation of Machinery and fixtures in the building by the lessee.

According to Polster, Inc. v. Swing, tenant was reponsible to repair the damage to the drop ceiling, ceiling tiles, interior walls, front door sill and jamb as it was not normal wear and tear.

Also in the case of Churchill Forge, Inc. v. Brown, there is no unjust in requiring a tenant to reimburse the expenses to landlord. As a result cost will shift to the tenant/lessee as the case may be.

In Conclusion : Thus it is the responsibilty of John to repair the property or else to reimburse the entire expenses incurred to Gary to put the building in good shape other than for normal wear and tear.

Here, the installing of machinery and fixtures should be considered as capital expenditure as lonterm benefit is determined. However, repairs at the end of the lease period will be categorised as revenue expenditure and considered in Profit & loss account for the purpose of tax.