Odeon Associated Theatres Ltd v Jones [1973] Ch 288

Facts

  • Odeon Associated Theatres Ltd purchased several cinemas between 1946 and 1957, many of which required significant repairs due to damage sustained during wartime.
  • Odeon estimated the expected repair costs for these cinemas and sought to deduct the estimated amounts from its taxable profits.
  • The Inland Revenue challenged these deductions, maintaining that only actual expenditures, not estimated future costs, should be allowable for tax purposes.

Issues

  1. Whether estimated liabilities for future repairs can be deducted from taxable profits before the expenses are actually incurred.
  2. What standard or threshold of accuracy and supporting evidence is required for such estimates to be permissible for tax deduction purposes.

Decision

  • The High Court sided with the Inland Revenue, holding that Odeon’s repair cost estimates were too uncertain and insufficiently substantiated for deduction.
  • The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court, finding Odeon’s estimates to be reliable, as they were based on professional surveys and the cinemas’ actual state of repair.
  • The Court distinguished this case from Southern Railway of Peru Ltd v Owen [1957] AC 334, emphasizing that reasonably accurate, evidence-backed estimates of future costs can be deductible even if some uncertainty remains.

Legal Principles

  • The matching principle in accounting requires expenses to be recorded in the same period as the revenues they relate to, supporting accurate profit calculation.
  • Reasonably accurate estimates of future costs may be deductible for tax if grounded in strong supporting evidence such as expert assessments and detailed records.
  • Deductibility does not extend to speculative or unclear liabilities; estimates must be realistic, supported by reliable data, and professionally reviewed.
  • Each case must be assessed individually, with special consideration given to the urgency, specificity, and evidential quality of the estimated expense.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Odeon Associated Theatres Ltd v Jones established that tax deductions may be allowed for well-supported, reasonably accurate estimates of future repair costs, so long as there is clear evidence and expert analysis, reaffirming the primacy of the matching principle in tax accounting.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal