Page: 270↓
[
Where a dwelling-house and business premises are under the same roof, but there is no internal communication between them, they are liable for inhabited house duty as one house if occupied by the same person.
This was a Case stated for the opinion of the Court of Exchequer under the following circumstances:—Mr William Russell, draper, Leslie, was assessed for Inhabited House Duties for the year ending 24th May 1877, at 6d. per £1 on £52, the annual value of premises occupied by him at Leslie.
Against that assessment he appealed at a meeting of the Commissioners at Kirkcaldy in January 1877. He stated that the amount on which the assessment was laid consisted of £35 rent of shop and £17 rent of dwelling-house, and there being no internal communication whatever, and the house being under £20, he contended that no duty was payable. The house was entered by a roofed staircase of 18 steps, built within the yard after referred to, but outside all the other premises. The dwelling-house had been let some years previously as such, separately from the other premises, and there had been no structural alteration since. The nearest shop door was nine feet in the open air from the foot of the covered staircase. None of Mr Russell's workers boarded or lodged on either of the premises.
The surveyor stated that he had viewed the premises, which consisted of a shop on the ground floor and house above, with yard and offices behind. The entrance to the house was from the yard, to which access was had by a “close” between this and the adjoining property, but the shop had two back doors entering upon same yard, so that the appellant went from shop to house without coming into the street or the “close.” In support of the assessment the surveyor referred to Rule 3, Schedule B, 48 Geo. III. c. 55, which enacted that “all shops and warehouses which are attached to the dwelling-house or have any communication therewith shall in charging the said duties be valued together with the dwelling-house, ” and to the case decided by the English Judges, No. 2781 (not otherwise reported), and contended that as the house and shop were under one roof, and as the whole premises were in the occupation of the appellant, and there was communication throughout by the private yard, which was a portion of the premises, the appellant was liable to the assessment appealed against.
The Commissioners considering the question to be attended with difficulty, decided to relieve the appellant, with which decision the surveyor expressed himself dissatisfied, and requested that this case might be stated.
The Lord Ordinary (
_________________ Footnote _________________ * Decided 6th March 1877.
Page: 271↓
“ Note.—The business premises are under the same roof as the dwelling-house, and are undoubtedly attached thereto, although there is no internal communication between them, and as both are occupied by the same person they must be valued in cumulo under the statute.”
The case of Robert Salmond jun. v. The Inland Revenue, the circumstances of which were analogous to the above, was similarly decided on the same day.
The interlocutors were acquiesced in.