000			01713cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS65958
008			020924n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u119804
100			_aBarr, W
245			_aAgricultural law update- Diversification
260			_c2002
490			_aSolicitors' Journal _v146(28) 19 July 2002, 657(1)
520			_aDiscusses trend towards diversification, and the changes in tax laws to encourage farmers in this direction. Makes the point that a landlord who permits his tenant to carry on a diversified business is likely to lose at least part of agricultural property relief for inheritance tax purposes, and consequently the holdover relief for capital gains tax. Cites "Jewell v McGowan"[2002] as an example where a landlord disagreed with the diversification arrangements of his tenant, an open farm for educational purposes, which contradicted a clause in their agreement regarding using the premises for agricultural purposes only. First judge found in favour of the tenant, that is his open farm business was only part of the farm and did not contravene the clause. However, the court of appeal found for the landlord, stating that the open farm formed a separate business. Concludes that if a farm diversification scheme consists of a separate business a tenant may need to seek totally different premises if his landlord is not in agreement.
590			_aABS
650			_aDIVERSIFICATION
650			_aAGRICULTURAL PROPERTY RELIEFS
650			_aAGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT 1986
650			_aJEWELL V MCGOWAN
650			_aBARRETT AND OTHERS V MORGAN
650			_aFARM TENANCIES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES
942			_n0
999			_c71199 _d71199