A period of trading activity may be followed by a period in
which little or no activity takes place, which is then followed by
further trading activity. In this situation the question is whether
the later trade is the same trade as the former one (this will
often be relevant in relation to the application of the
commencement and cessation provisions and the availability of
losses carried forward or back).
The new activity may be so different in scale and/or nature
from the old one that it cannot be the same trade and must
represent the commencement of a new trade (
BIM70595) (Seaman v Tucketts Ltd [1963]
41TC422).
Where, however, the new activity is similar in scale and
nature to the old, it is relevant to look at all the circumstances
in which the break occurred, including the length of the break and
the intentions of the business proprietors (as shown by their
actions) at the time the earlier activity ceased (Kirk &
Randall Ltd v Dunn [1924] 8TC663; Goff v Osborne & Co
(Sheffield) Ltd [1953] 34TC441; J G Ingram & Son Ltd v
Callaghan [1968] 45TC151; Robroyston Brickworks Ltd v CIR [1976]
51TC230).
