Christchurch press co ltd v CIR - Good to determine if expenditure is capital or not - look at subset of capital expenditure which is repairs and maintenance This is case from canterbury,this is christchurch press down in canterbury. It is Old case. Chirstchurh press had number of staff they used to work on the equipment that they had to print the newspapers. They had electricians things and turner and so on? etc. What did they installed another capital asset - there is no question that the asset itself was a capital asset. That is not what we are concerned about. They used some of their existing staff to work on the new asset. The q then becomes whether the wages and salary that paid to those existing staff whether they are capitalised along with the asset or whether are they revenue. What they said, went to the taxation revenue authority, ended up at the high court. They found that the principal purpose of the work was capital in nature. Bec the workers were doing work on a newly installed capital asset to get upto the point where it can be used to them to do whatever they wanted to do with it, that meant their wages and salary were capital in nature. It didnt matter that the company would of been paid those salary anyway. That is not the test. It is Not whether they were already committed to the expenditure. The test is whether it is related to capital expenditure. shorten