Fletcher v Bartle (VO)
Language: English Series: Rating Appeals ; 1988 RA 284-304(21)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: LT 26 August 1988. Appeal by farmer (F) against an lvc decision that a room in a farm building used for retail sales of farm produce, was occupied for the purpose of an independent commercial enterprise and as such was not exempt from rating . The farm produced fruit, wheat and vegetables, a proportion of which was sold direct to the public in the "shop". The only produce sold was that grown on F`s land. F appealed against the lvc assessment of gv £52; rv £29, contending that the shop was an agricultural building under the General Rate Act 1967 s26 (4)(a) and was therefore exempt from rating. F claimed that the shop did not constitute an independent commercial enterprise because 1) the produce was not subject to any processing; 2) no separate staff were employed to run the shop and 3) all produce sold was grown on the farm, it was not imported. F regarded the sales as de minimus. VO held that it was rateable because it was used for a separate and distinct purpose, ie retail sales. LT| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS40426 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 23760-1001 |
LT 26 August 1988. Appeal by farmer (F) against an lvc decision that a room in a farm building used for retail sales of farm produce, was occupied for the purpose of an independent commercial enterprise and as such was not exempt from rating . The farm produced fruit, wheat and vegetables, a proportion of which was sold direct to the public in the "shop". The only produce sold was that grown on F`s land. F appealed against the lvc assessment of gv £52; rv £29, contending that the shop was an agricultural building under the General Rate Act 1967 s26 (4)(a) and was therefore exempt from rating. F claimed that the shop did not constitute an independent commercial enterprise because 1) the produce was not subject to any processing; 2) no separate staff were employed to run the shop and 3) all produce sold was grown on the farm, it was not imported. F regarded the sales as de minimus. VO held that it was rateable because it was used for a separate and distinct purpose, ie retail sales. LT