Hi,

My understanding is a garden shed office is capital expenditure - without being eligible for capital allowances.

CAA 2001 Sections 21 and 22 doesn't necessarily rule out a wooden shed. Unless you compare a shed to, -found under list A;

  Walls, floors, ceilings, doors, gates, shutters, windows and stairs.

HMRC CA21100 - This sheet contains reference to various case laws -

Firstly, two questions within a question;

1) In regards to case law - Will a more recent case law take precedent over a previous case law? (Same subject area, or there abouts)

2) Will a case law from a Higher court, take precedent over a lower court? The answer seems obvious, yet I'm unsure if case laws are ever voided as such.

Within CA21100 - This is from the Yard arm case -

Quote;

"a characteristic of plant appears to be that it is an adjunct to the carrying on of a business and not the essential site or core of the business itself."

Oxford dictionary -

Adjunct A thing added to something else as a supplementary rather than an essential part: (I'm not taking the Michael referencing the dictionary, I hear the Oxford dictionary is extremely important in interpreting law)

In the same case the third court of appeal hearing, the judge made clear -

  "premises only becomes plant if they function as plant"

 So, depending on your interpretation of plant, how would you account for a shed and it's features? How would you account for the electrics?

There is one last case I will add -

The premises test; Wimpy International Ltd v Warland