Scottish Court of Session Decisions

At a meeting of the Commissioners for Income Tax and Inhabited House-Duty for the Upper Ward of Renfrew, held at Paisley on 2d April 1884, Messrs M'Innes, Mackenzie, & Lochhead, writers in Paisley, appealed against an assessment for 1883–84 of £4, 13s. 9d. made upon them for Inhabited House-Duty at the rate of 9d. per £1 on £125, the annual value of the premises No 7 Gilmour Street, Paisley, occupied partly by the appellants as writing chambers.

The building forming Nos 6 and 7 Gilmour Street consisted of three stories and attics, and belonged pro indiviso to the individual members of the appellants' firm. The ground floor was occupied partly by the Commercial Bank of Scotland, Limited, as a branch office, and partly by a bookseller as a retail shop, both entering directly from the street by separate doors. These business premises were not embraced in the assessment. The first flat or floor was occupied by the appellants as writing chambers, and was entered in the valuation roll at a yearly rent or value of £80, and the second flat or floor and attics were occupied as a dwelling-house, and were let by the proprietors (the appellants) to the Commercial Bank of Scotland, Limited, along with the branch office on the ground floor, at a cumulo rent of £200, conform to a regular lease for ten years, commencing Whitsunday 1877. By an arrangement between Mr Ross, the bank's agent, and Mr Lochhead (a partner of the appellants' firm), to which the appellants were no parties, Mr Lochhead became the occupant of the second flat and attics at Whitsunday 1881 at a yearly rent of £45. Access to the first and second floors was obtained by a lobby or vestibule on the ground floor and a stair. The writing chambers were shut in by a glass door on the first floor, which was locked at night, and the dwelling-house was shut in by a door at the top of the stair. The stair to the attics was within the dwelling-house. There was no internal communication between the writing chambers and the dwelling-house. At the threshold of the lobby or vestibule, on the ground floor, there was an outer or street door, which enclosed the first and second floors. It was locked at night, and the street bell was connected with the dwelling-house above.

The appellants claimed relief to the extent of the duty charged on the writing chambers.

They contended that the dwelling-house and writing chambers were clearly separate and different tenements, and were not only capable of being let, but were let and occupied, as such, and that the writing chambers being occupied solely for business or professional purposes, were exempt from Inhabited House-Duty, under The Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1878 (41 and 42 Vict. c. 15), sec. 13. sub-sec 1; they founded on the case of Corke v. Brims, July 7, 1883, 10 R. 1128.

The surveyor of taxes contended that the premises assessed were in reality one tenement or dwelling-house, and being occupied in part by the proprietors, were not “let in different tenements,” so as to come under 48 Geo. III. c. 55, Sched. B, rule 6, or the exemption contained in 41 and 42 Vict. c. 15, sec. 13, sub-sec. 1.

By 48 Geo. III. c. 53, Sched. B, rule 6, it is enacted that “Where any house shall be let in different stories, tenements, lodgings, or landings, and shall be inhabited by two or more persons or families, the same shall nevertheless be subject to, and shall in like manner be charged to, the said duties as if such house or tenement was inhabited by one person or family only, and the landlord or owner shall be deemed the occupier of such dwelling-house, and shall be charged to said duties, provided,” &c.

By the 41 and 42 Vict. c. 15 (The Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1878), sec. 13, sub-sec. 1, it

Page: 741↓

is enacted that “Where any house, being one property, shall be divided into and let in different tenements, and any of such tenements are occupied solely for the purposes of any trade or business, or of any profession or calling by which the occupier seeks a livelihood or profit, or are unoccupied, the person chargeable as occupier of the house shall be at liberty to give notice in writing at any time during the year of assessment to the surveyor of taxes for the parish or place in which the house is situate, stating therein the facts, and after the receipt of such notice by the surveyor, the Commissioners acting in the execution of the Acts relating to the inhabited house—duties shall, upon proof of the facts to their satisfaction, grant relief from the amount of the duty charged in the assessment so as to confine the same to the duty on the value according to which the house should in their opinion have been assessed if it had been a house comprising only the tenements other than such as are occupied as aforesaid or are unoccupied.”

The Commissioners sustained the appeal, and the surveyor took a Case.

The surveyor argued that this case was distinguishable from Corke v. Brims, supra cit., because here the person who occupied the dwelling—house was one of the proprietors.

The Court, without delivering opinions, held that the case was ruled by Corke v. Brims, and affirmed the determination of the Commissioners.