(Lands Tribunal for Scotland) Premises under common occupation but situated on opposite sides of a main road constituted two hereditaments: ‘We consider that the emphasis on the geographical test is an aspect of recognition that lands and heritages are physical subjects. The underlying purpose is to provide a proper basis for a tax on property, not a tax on persons or businesses. Where the subjects share characteristics of function which, in a robust practical sense, support the use of a single term to describe the physical subjects, they can be treated as one unit. . . On the other hand, we are satisfied that the fact that certain heritable subjects function together as one business will, by itself, be insufficient to demonstrate that they are to be regarded as a unum quid in any physical sense. A ‘business’ is not a concept based on physical or heritable factors. Entry in the roll is based on identification of heritable subjects. The fact that one business may need to occupy two separate physical subjects does not change the character of the subjects. It is clear that undue emphasis on a business connection as evidence of functional connection between subjects could lead to a distinction for rating purposes between a business whose operating units were in close proximity and those whose operating units were, perhaps only slightly, more remote. There is no basis in legislation for such a distinction. We see no basis in fairness for it. We are not persuaded that there is a consistent practice which would lead to that result. If there is, we see no need to follow it . . In the present case there is a clear physical separation of the two subjects. They each have a clear curtilage and these curtilages are separated by a public road and pavements. . . Although, in a sense, little different from the interposition of a public road, the fact that the ratepayers do not have exclusive occupation of the land which provides their access to that public road and the intermittent presence at their gate of large, slow-moving vehicles belonging to another occupier, tends to enhance the impression of separation of the two subjects. A test based on appearance and impression may properly be treated as part of the geographical test. The two subjects have no unifying visual characteristics. There is nothing to indicate that they are operated together, far less that the physical presence of one is essential to the function of the other. . . Their physical characteristic as two distinct subjects is supported by the consideration that there is no real doubt that the subjects could be let separately.’
Citations:
[2001] RA 110
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – Woolway v Mazars SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court was asked how different storeys under common occupation in the same block are to be entered in the rating list for the purpose of non-domestic rating. In this case the firm’s two offices were in the same building, but the connection . .
Not approved – Woolway v Mazars SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court was asked how different storeys under common occupation in the same block are to be entered in the rating list for the purpose of non-domestic rating. In this case the firm’s two offices were in the same building, but the connection . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Rating
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591254
