Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Cheape v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1888] ScotLR 26_103 (27 November 1888)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1888/26SLR0103.html
Cite as: [1888] SLR 26_103, [1888] ScotLR 26_103

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 103↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

[Exchequer Cause.

Tuesday, November 27. 1888.

26 SLR 103

Cheape

v.

Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

Subject_1Revenue
Subject_2Inhabited House Duty
Subject_314 and 15 Vict. cap. 36, Schedule.
Facts:

By the schedule of this Act a duty of ninepence for every pound of annual value is imposed upon occupiers, with certain specified exceptions, “for every inhabited dwelling-house which, with the household and other offices, yards, and gardens therewith occupied and charged, is or shall be worth the rent of twenty pounds or upwards by the year.”

By Schedule B of the Act 48 Geo. III. c. 55, to which the later Act above mentioned refers, it is enacted under rule 2 that “every coach-house, stable, wash-house, … and all other offices and gardens and pleasure grounds, belonging to and occupied with any dwelling-house, shall, in charging the said duties, be valued together with such dwelling-house: Provided no more than one acre of such gardens and pleasure grounds shall in any case be so valued.”

The committee of subscribers to a pack of hounds rented certain premises, consisting of a house which was occupied by the huntsman, cottages occupied by a whip and a groom, kennels and stables. The annual value of these subjects, taken together, was over £20 a-year. Held that a duty of 9d. per £ was rightly imposed on the committee for the occupation of these premises.

Headnote:

Captain Cheape, Master of the Linlithgow and Stirlingshire Pack of Foxhounds, on behalf of himself and the other members of the committee of subscribers to the hounds, appealed against an assessment of £1, 10s. made upon them for inhabited-house-duty for the year ending 24th May 1888, at the rate of 9d. per £ on £40, the rent or annual value of premises occupied by the committee at Golfhall, in the parish of Cor-storphine, and belonging to Sir James R. Gibson Maitland, Bart.

The premises consisted of—1, A two-storeyed dwelling-house of six apartments, occupied by the huntsman, of the probable annual value of £9; 2, a cottage of two apartments and a bed-closet, occupied by the whip, worth probably about £4 per annum; 3, a groom's house of three rooms, worth £4 per annum; 4, stables, with harness-room, and other accommodation for 20 horses; 5, a kennel, capable of holding about 50 dog hounds, with exercising yard attached; 6, a kennel, capable of holding 50 bitches, with exercising yard attached; 7, a small kennel, and yard attached; 8, two boiling-houses, and several other outhouses; 9, about 3 and a quarter acres of land on the east side of the kennels, which is used chiefly as a training and exercising yard.

These subjects were let at a cumulo rent of
Page: 104↓
£40, with £9, 15s. 8d. as for interest on expenditure on the kennels some years ago. The interest was regarded by all parties as equal to the rent of the land, and it was assumed that the balance of £40 represented the annual value of the whole buildings.

Under the schedule of the Act 14 and 15 Vict. cap. 36, a duty of ninpence for every pound of annual value is imposed, with certain specified exceptions, “for every inhabited dwelling-house which, with the household and other offices, yards, and gardens therewith occupied and charged, is or shall be worth the rent of £20 or upwards by the year.”

Special reference is made by this Act to Schedule B of the Act 48 Geo. III. cap. 55, rule 2 of which enacts—“Every coach-house, stable, brew-house, wash-house, laundry, wood-house, bake-house, dairy, and all other offices, and all yards, courts, and curtilages, and gardens and pleasure grounds, belonging to and occupied with any dwelling-house, shall, in charging the said duties, be valued together with such dwelling-house: Provided no more than one acre of such gardens and pleasure grounds shall, in any case, be so valued.”

By rule 3 it is enacted that all shops and warehouses which are attached to the dwelling-house, and have any communication therewith, shall be valued together with the dwelling-house. An exception is made of such warehouses as are distinct and separate buildings from the dwelling-houses and shops attached thereto, employed solely for the lodging of goods or the carrying on of a manufacture (notwithstanding the same may adjoin to or have communication with the dwelling-house or shop).

The Commissioners refused the appeal, and the appellant requested a case to be stated for the opinion of the Court under the Taxes Management Act 1880 (43 and 44 Vict. c. 19).

Argued for the appellant—The premises in question were not such as were properly subject to inhabited-house-duty. They were not the pertinents of a gentleman's residence, but rather premises occupied for the business, so to speak, of hunting— Douglas v. Young, November 14, 1878, 7 R. 229. They more nearly resembled a home farm, or a farm where the tenant did not reside, which it was the invariable practice of the Inland Revenue to exempt from this duty. The houses of the servants of the hunt were merely accessions to the stables and kennels. If they did not fall under rule 2 of Schedule B of the Act Geo. III., they certainly did not fall under rule 3, as none of the separate houses was by itself of the annual value of £20, and there was no internal communication between them. Even were the huntsman's house of the annual value of £20, the assessment should be laid on him, as the occupant, and not on the committee of subscribers, who were assessed already in the same duty for their residences elsewhere.

Argued for the respondent—The committee were the real occupants of these premises, which were leased for the purposes of the hunt. The assessment was therefore rightly laid on them. There was a dwelling-house here, and the stables and kennels were occupied in connection therewith. Rule 2 therefore applied, and the argument based on the want of internal communication fell to the ground.

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord President—The Act which imposes the duty which is now laid on the appellant is 14 and 15 Vict. c. 36, and the schedule, which is the important part of that Act, authorises duties to be levied upon inhabited dwelling-houses according to the annual value thereof—that is to say, on “every inhabited dwelling-house which, together with the household and other offices, yards, and gardens therewith occupied and charged, is or shall be worth the rent of £20 a-year.” There must be an inhabited dwelling-house in order to bring the subject of the assessment within the scope of the schedule, but that inhabited dwelling-house need not of itself be of the value of £20 if the household and other offices, yards, and gardens therewith occupied and charged make it up to that amount. And with regard to the different modes of occupation we have it provided in the schedule that where the dwelling-house is occupied by any person in trade who shall expose for sale and sell any goods in any shop or warehouse, being part of a dwelling-house, and also where a dwelling-house shall be occupied by any person who shall be duly licensed to sell beer, ale, wine, or other liquors, and also where any dwelling-house shall be a farm-house occupied by the tenant or farm-servants, and bona fide used for the purposes of husbandry only, the assessment is to be at the rate of 6d. per £. But in all other cases, except these three, the assessment is to be at the rate of 9d. per £. But it is obvious that what is contemplated in all these cases is that the dwelling-house may be occupied by a person other than the person assessed, for there is given, as one example, a dwelling-house, being a farm house, occupied by a farm servant, upon which nevertheless the owner or tenant may be assessed. Now, the schedule of the old Act of 48 Geo. III., to which this later statute refers us back, has this rule—“Every coach-house, stable, brew-house, and so forth belonging to and occupied with any dwelling-house shall, in charging the said duties, be valued together with such dwelling-house,” provided that no more than one acre of garden ground shall in any case be so valued. Then the question comes to be, have we in this case a dwelling-house to begin with? Now, undoubtedly there is; there is a dwelling-house of some importance. It is said not to be quite of the value of £20 in itself, but nevertheless it is a two-storeyed house with six rooms, and is occupied by the huntsman who, of course, is the chief man in the premises. The other houses consist of stables and kennels which are occupied along with the dwelling-house in this sense, that they are all occupied for the purposes of the hunt; they are all occupied for one and the same general purpose, and therefore they seem to me to fall within the description both of the schedule in the old Act and of the schedule in the new Act. Now, it is not pretended that these premises are under the value of £20; on the contrary, they are very much above it, and therefore it appears to me that the Acts of Parliament are directly applicable. Some reference was made to the fact of the different buildings constituting these premises having separate entrances and no internal communication, but that has no relevancy in regard to a subject of this kind. But the second rule in the schedule

Page: 105↓

of the Act of 48 Geo. III. makes no reference to internal communication or anything of the kind as being necessary; on the contrary, it is quite obvious that the sort of premises there in view are premises occupied in connection with the dwelling-house, but not by any means necessarily communicating with the dwelling-house in any way. And just as little is there any such idea to be found in the schedule of the more recent statute. I therefore think this assessment is well laid on.

Lord Mure concurred.

Lord Shand—It appears to me upon the statement of the case that we have here a dwelling-house and pertinents such as are described in rule second of the Act of 48 Geo. III., in the occupation of the committee of the hunt, upon whom the assessment has been laid, and as these are to be regarded, as I think, as one subject, and are above the value which renders the subjects liable to assessment, I have no doubt the assessment has been well laid on.

Lord Adam concurred.

The Court affirmed the determination of the Commissioners.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Appellant— Chisholm. Agents— Wallace & Begg, W. S.

Counsel for the Commissioners— Young. Agent—Solicitor of Inland Revenue.
1888