Digging for the answer
Gunn, M.
Digging for the answer - 1989 - Taxation 123(3203) 8 June 1989, 288-289(2) .
Discusses the case, McClure v Petre , where the taxpayer owned the freehold of pasture land , of no great agricultural value, subject to an agricultural tenancy . In March 1983 a licence was granted to a construction company , to deposit sub-soil from a motorway construction. The construction company was liable for drainage and restoration of the site to agricultural use. The consideration for this agreement was £50,000 + £22,125 for raising the level of the site. The tenant continued to pay rent and was not compensated for loss of income from the land. The Commissioners found that the restored land was in many ways more valuable. Under a separate transaction for £4,000 materials were deposited in a disused railway cutting which was a once and for all operation. In this case the Commissioners held that the capital value of the land had appreciated because of the tipping prospects and the appreciation in value was realised once only.
ROLFE V WIMPEY WASTE MANAGEMENT LTD
Digging for the answer - 1989 - Taxation 123(3203) 8 June 1989, 288-289(2) .
Discusses the case, McClure v Petre , where the taxpayer owned the freehold of pasture land , of no great agricultural value, subject to an agricultural tenancy . In March 1983 a licence was granted to a construction company , to deposit sub-soil from a motorway construction. The construction company was liable for drainage and restoration of the site to agricultural use. The consideration for this agreement was £50,000 + £22,125 for raising the level of the site. The tenant continued to pay rent and was not compensated for loss of income from the land. The Commissioners found that the restored land was in many ways more valuable. Under a separate transaction for £4,000 materials were deposited in a disused railway cutting which was a once and for all operation. In this case the Commissioners held that the capital value of the land had appreciated because of the tipping prospects and the appreciation in value was realised once only.
ROLFE V WIMPEY WASTE MANAGEMENT LTD