Bolt down temporary shed..

[Col555]

We're thinking of putting up a new shed this summer, mainly for machinery/straw storage. But been on a rented farm, something classed as a bolt down 'temporary' shed looks the best option..so the landlord has no claim on it, should we ever leave (not planning to, but you never know whats round the corner)

What are the do's and dont's from a tenants point of view?
Does the floor have to be hardcore...I'm guessing any concrete will be classed as permanent, therefore classing the whole structure as a fixture that the landlord could claim? What do these sheds have for the uprights foundations....a size limit? I'm guessing conrete panels for walls are ok...
Excuse my ignorance on the subject...I haven't actually looked into it before, so any advice is welcome

 

[Blue.]

A lot will depend on your agreement,all the buildings I've put up go down as tenant fixtures,concrete laid the same.

If I were to leave I would either be compensated or take the buildings with me.

 

[JNP]

You wouldn't need a special kind of shed, you just need to have the top of the foundation concrete at floor level.

As to who has claim on it I do not know, but eulb says, it would be a fixture of yours so you could take it away or sell it to the landlord if you ever left.

 

[Muck Spreader]

Polytunnel?

 

[Derrick Hughes]

You should get tax rebate as well having portable intentions

 

[Hesston4860s]

You should get tax rebate as well having portable intentions

My accountant reckons the tax man won't ware it as a temporary stucture as I asked him the other day.

 

[Derrick Hughes]

My accountant reckons the tax man won't ware it as a temporary stucture as I asked him the other day.

Could depend on you tenancy agreement read the bit at the bottom DO UNBOLTABLE SHEDS COUNT AS MOVEABLE AND QUALIFY ?
So far we have considered sheds that are specifically designed to be mobile, and provided it can be shown that the intention is to move the shed from site to site, it will qualify as plant. What however, is the position for sheds that are not built as ‘mobile’ sheds, but are unboltable and can be taken down and re erected elsewhere?
The legislation does not specifically comment on this type of expenditure. CAA01 S21 and S22 prevents most buildings and structures qualifying as plant, based on their fixed, permanent nature. However, the moveable aspect referred to in CA22110 hints that where structures are designed to be moved, and are intended to be moved in the course of the trade, they may qualify as plant.
As with mobile chicken sheds, the key is the intention. Provided the farmer (or indeed any client) intends to move the building from site to site, and the structure is designed so as to allow this, the expenditure may qualify as plant. We are finding that more and more shed builders are designing sheds that can be moved easily due to the change in the nature of farming businesses. This ensures there is a higher resale value on the building, rather than an immoveable structure than cannot be relocated as simply.
In order to maximise the chances of treating the expenditure on unboltable sheds as plant, there are a number of steps that should be taken.
Firstly the building must be erected in such a way that it is unboltable and can be taken down and re erected elsewhere. Many sheds are being designed with concrete moveable sides or they are being made in panelled form so they can be moved (such as those referred to in CA22030 item number 13).
Secondly, it could be important and helpful that clients establish their intention to move the building with the contractor prior to obtaining a quote. They should retain all correspondence demonstrating that they intend to move the building – this could be e mails, letters or notes of telephone calls. It is desirable that clients work closely with the contractor from the outset to ensure that the shed is designed in such a way that it can be moved as and when they wish.
Lastly, you should be able to show that you have good reason to want to move the building. To put up a structure with no reason to move it, and where the likelihood is that it is never moved is almost certainly not going to qualify.
Examples of where a client is likely to have an argument for intention to move an unboltable shed include:
Tenant farmers with a short term Farm Business Tenancy (FBT) may wish to move the shed to another farm at the end of the tenancy – why else would you put up a shed on someone else’s land, particularly if there is no provision for compensation in respect of capital improvements within the tenancy agreement?

 

[Hesston4860s]

Could depend on you tenancy agreement read the bit at the bottom DO UNBOLTABLE SHEDS COUNT AS MOVEABLE AND QUALIFY ?
So far we have considered sheds that are specifically designed to be mobile, and provided it can be shown that the intention is to move the shed from site to site, it will qualify as plant. What however, is the position for sheds that are not built as ‘mobile’ sheds, but are unboltable and can be taken down and re erected elsewhere?
The legislation does not specifically comment on this type of expenditure. CAA01 S21 and S22 prevents most buildings and structures qualifying as plant, based on their fixed, permanent nature. However, the moveable aspect referred to in CA22110 hints that where structures are designed to be moved, and are intended to be moved in the course of the trade, they may qualify as plant.
As with mobile chicken sheds, the key is the intention. Provided the farmer (or indeed any client) intends to move the building from site to site, and the structure is designed so as to allow this, the expenditure may qualify as plant. We are finding that more and more shed builders are designing sheds that can be moved easily due to the change in the nature of farming businesses. This ensures there is a higher resale value on the building, rather than an immoveable structure than cannot be relocated as simply.
In order to maximise the chances of treating the expenditure on unboltable sheds as plant, there are a number of steps that should be taken.
Firstly the building must be erected in such a way that it is unboltable and can be taken down and re erected elsewhere. Many sheds are being designed with concrete moveable sides or they are being made in panelled form so they can be moved (such as those referred to in CA22030 item number 13).
Secondly, it could be important and helpful that clients establish their intention to move the building with the contractor prior to obtaining a quote. They should retain all correspondence demonstrating that they intend to move the building – this could be e mails, letters or notes of telephone calls. It is desirable that clients work closely with the contractor from the outset to ensure that the shed is designed in such a way that it can be moved as and when they wish.
Lastly, you should be able to show that you have good reason to want to move the building. To put up a structure with no reason to move it, and where the likelihood is that it is never moved is almost certainly not going to qualify.
Examples of where a client is likely to have an argument for intention to move an unboltable shed include:
Tenant farmers with a short term Farm Business Tenancy (FBT) may wish to move the shed to another farm at the end of the tenancy – why else would you put up a shed on someone else’s land, particularly if there is no provision for compensation in respect of capital improvements within the tenancy agreement?

I'm not a tenant that's the problem it's gonna be built on my own land.

 

[Derrick Hughes]

I'm not a tenant that's the problem it's gonna be built on my own land.

sorry was thinking of the OP

 

[Cowabunga]

In most cases it would be sensible and normal to regard a shed, however constructed, as tenants capital written down to zero in equal annual steps over ten years from start of use date. So at the end of ten years it becomes totally the property of the landlord.
If it was a very significant and major investment, like a complete greenfield dairy unit, then it would be sensible to push for a 15 year write-off in my opinion. Never having been in this position though, I'm not sure what the common practice is.