## Facts

- London & Thames Haven Oil Wharves Ltd received a one-time payment as compensation for the temporary loss of the use of part of its jetty, which was damaged due to another party’s negligence.
- The payment was intended to cover the lost earnings during the period when the jetty could not be used.
- There was no permanent damage to the jetty; the loss of use was for a fixed, limited period.
- The dispute centred on whether this compensation payment should be treated as capital (affecting the asset value) or as income (replaceable business earnings) for accounting and tax purposes.

## Issues

1. Whether compensation received for temporary loss of use of a business facility should be classified as capital or income for tax and accounting purposes.
2. Whether the "long-term benefit" to the recipient or the nature of what was surrendered determines this classification.
3. How the case should be distinguished from previous decisions such as Glenboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v IRC.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the compensation payment in this case was to be treated as income, not capital.
- The reasoning was that the jetty suffered only temporary loss of use rather than permanent damage or impairment.
- The payment was a substitute for lost earnings during the interruption, not for any lasting reduction in the asset's value.
- The court distinguished this situation from cases in which payments compensated for permanent loss of a business asset, specifically referencing Glenboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v IRC, where payment was classified as capital due to permanent loss.

## Legal Principles

- Compensation for temporary loss of use of business assets is income if it replaces earnings lost during the downtime, not capital value.
- The "long-term benefit" test examines whether the compensation relates to a permanent impairment of business facilities.
- Payments related to permanent loss or destruction of a business asset are to be classified as capital.
- The nature of the benefit for the recipient and the permanency of the loss are critical for proper classification.
- The rules established apply to similar cases, such as temporary closures for repairs being treated as income, while non-restorable losses potentially attract capital treatment.
- Classification of such payments directly affects tax liabilities and timing.

## Conclusion

The case established that compensation for temporary loss of business facilities should be treated as income, not capital, where there is no permanent impairment to the asset, formalizing the “long-term benefit” test as the key criterion for classification in tax and accounting contexts.

London & Thames Haven Oil Wharves Ltd v Attwool [1967] 2 All ER 124