 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Corporation of Glasgow v. Inland Revenue (Kelvingrove Museum Case) [1880] ScotLR 18_1_2 (19 October 1880) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1880/18SLR0001_2.html Cite as: [1880] SLR 18_1_2, [1880] ScotLR 18_1_2 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 1↓
[Court of Exchequer.
Held that under the above enactments the Corporation of Glasgow, as trustees under a local Act of Parliament, were
Page: 2↓
liable in inhabited-house-duty, in respect of (1) public galleries for exhibiting pictures and other works of art, and (2) a public industrial and natural history museum; and that no exemption under the Act of 1878 fell to be made in respect of certain rooms in the former building which were let to a philosophical society and to an institute of engineers respectively.
The Corporation of Glasgow, as trustees under the “Public Parks and Galleries Act 1859” (22 Vict., Local and Personal, c. 17), presented two cases to the Court of Session on appeal from determinations of the Commissioners for general purposes acting under the Property and Income-Tax and Inhabited-House-Duty Acts for the lower ward of the county of Lanark. In the first of these cases they had appealed to the Commissioners against a charge of £35, 12s. 6d., made upon them for inhabited-house-duty for year 1879–80, at the rate of 9d. per pound on £950, being the annual value of premises at 270 Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow.
The facts as stated in the appeal case were as follows:—“1st, That the assessment is made in respect of the premises occupied as under, viz.:—
Galleries, known as the Corporation Galleries, occupied by the Corporation for exhibiting pictures and other objects of art, the valuation of which is
£750
0
0
A caretaker's house, occupied by Alexander Tennant, the valuation of which is
10
0
0
Rooms occupied by the Institute of Engineers, valued at
100
0
0
And rooms occupied by the Philosophical Society, valued at
90
0
0
Making in all a valuation of
£950
0
0
“2d, In the upper flat of the main building there are five rooms filled with pictures and other works of art, to which the public are admitted free.
In the first flat a hall and two small rooms let to the Glasgow Philosophical Society, the like accommodation let to the Glasgow Institute of Engineers, and an office used by Mr Paton, the curator of the galleries.
In the sunk flat the caretaker's house, consisting of three rooms and kitchen.
Behind the above building, and communicating therewith, there are three rooms, with three cloak or retiring-rooms; these rooms are filled with pictures and other works of art, to which the public are also admitted free.
3d, There is internal communication by means of stairs and passages inside the building between the caretaker's house and all the other rooms.
4th, The galleries are occasionally let for meetings or exhibitions.”
The appellants contended—“1st, That the assessment should be relieved, in terms of sec. 13, sub-sec. 1, of the Act 41 Vict. c. 15, and also under sub-sec. 2 of the said Act.
“2d, That the galleries being the property of the whole citizens of Glasgow, and maintained by local assessments, and the premises charged not being (in the sense of the statutes imposing the assessment) an ‘inhabited house,’ the assessment should be relieved.”
The Surveyor of Taxes submitted “that the assessment was correctly imposed, under rule 6, Schedule B, of 48 Geo. III. c. 55, and that the exceptions under sub-secs. 1 and 2 of sec. 13 of the Act 41 Vict. c. 15, do not apply, no portion of the premises being occupied ‘solely for the purposes of any trade or business, or of any profession or calling by which the occupier seeks a livelihood or profit.’”
The Commissioners by a majority confirmed the assessment, they being satisfied that the premises were so occupied as not to come within any of the exemptions claimed; and, on the craving of the appellants, stated a Case for the opinion of the Court, which was subsequently heard before the First Division
Argued for the appellants—The premises in question were not an “inhabited house” within the meaning of the Act and according to the interpretation of the decisions. The Corporation could not be said to inhabit them, nor could the public. They were not resided in, nor used for trading or professional purposes. In any view, the portions let to the Philosophical Society and the Institute of Engineers fell under the exemption of the Act of 1878. These societies did meet for purposes of profit.
Authorities— Glasgow Coal Exchange Company, March 18, 1879, 6 R. 850; Edinburgh Life Assurance Company, Feb. 2, 1875, 2 R. 394; Union Bank of Scotland, Feb. 2, 1878, 5 R. 598; Cowan & Strachan and Scottish Widows' Fund, Jan. 22, 1880, 17 Scot. Law Rep. 314; N. Campbell, Feb. 21, 1880, 17 Scot. Law Rep. 407; Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company, July 16, 1880, 17 Scot. Law Rep. 768; Clerk, July 16, 1880, 17 Scot. Law Rep. 774.
In the second case, on. which no separate argument was heard by the Court, the Corporation of Glasgow, as trustees foresaid, had appealed against a charge of £6, 3s. 9d. made upon them for inhabited-house-duty for year 1879–80, at the rate of 9d. per pound on £165, being the annual value of Kelvingrove House and Museum.
The facts as stated in the Case were as follows:—“1st, That the assessment is made in respect of the occupancy by the Corporation of Glasgow, as trustees foresaid, of the premises known as Kelvingrove House and Museum, used wholly as an industrial and natural history museum, with the exception of the assistant-curator's house. The valuation of the whole premises is £165.
“2d, The premises consist of two divisions, the old and the new. The old building is in height two storeys and attics, and is wholly used as an industrial and natural history museum, except the assistant-curator's house, consisting of two rooms and kitchen on the first flat and three rooms on the attic flat. The new building consists of one hall with a gallery, and is wholly occupied as an industrial and natural history museum.
3d, There is internal communication by means of stairs and passages throughout the buildings.
4th, The public are admitted free to the museum.”
The Commissioners having confirmed the assessment, the appellants craved a Case.
At advising—
Page: 3↓
The case of the Corporation Galleries stands in a somewhat different position, for the house there consists of several parts occupied in different ways. There is, in the first place, a portion of the premises known as the Corporation Galleries, and occupied by the Corporation for exhibiting pictures and other objects of art, which is the greater part of the building. But there is also a caretaker's house, and there are rooms occupied by the Institute of Engineers, and also rooms occupied by the Philosophical Society. The owners of the entire house are undoubtedly the magistrates of Glasgow, as trustees under the Local Act which I have already mentioned, and therefore the case falls within the 6th rule of Schedule B of 48 of Geo. III., as being the case of a house “let in different storeys, tenements, lodgings, or lands, and inhabited by two or more persons or families, in which case the house is to be subject to, and shall in like manner be charged, the said duties as if such house or tenement was inhabited by one person or family only, and the landlord or owner shall be deemed the occupier of such dwelling-house, and shall be charged for the said duties.” It is clear, I think, that that rule applies to this case. The greater portion of the house is occupied by the trustees as owners, but other portions of it are occupied by the Philosophical Society and by the Glasgow Institute of Engineers as tenants, and if the case stood upon the original statute only there would be no more to be said. But it is maintained that under the first sub-section of section 13 of Act 41 Vict. cap. 15, there is relief in so far as concerns that portion of the premises which are occupied by those two societies, the Philosophical Society and the Glasgow Institute of Engineers. The provision is this—“Where any house, being one property, shall be divided into and let in different tenements, and any of such tenements are occupied solely for the purposes of any trade or business, or of any profession or calling by which the occupier seeks a livelihood or profit, or are unoccupied,” then after certain notice the Commissioners may grant relief from the assessment. Now, I think it may be doubted how far the appellant here has placed himself in a position to take advantage of this clause of exemption supposing it to apply to his case, because the statute requires that a particular notice shall be given where such relief is claimed, and a notice, not of a formal character merely, but a notice containing a distinct statement of the facts in respect of which the relief is claimed. That is to be given to the surveyor within a certain period, and ajudicated upon separately by the Commissioners. But the respondent here has taken no objection to this question being raised upon the present case, and it would not be desirable to avoid determining the point merely upon the ground of that technicality, and therefore I am quite prepared to give my opinion as to to the applicability of this subsection to the case in hand. No doubt the portions of the premises here occupied by the Institute of Engineers and the Philosophical Society are quite within the description of this clause in so far as they are portions of a building let in different tenements. But it is not in every case where portions of a building are let in different tenements that relief is to be given; it is only where these separate portions of the house are “occupied for purposes of trade or business, or profession or calling by which the occupier seeks to make a livelihood or profit;” and the appellant has never been able to explain in the course of the argument how the Institute of Engineers or the Philosophical Society are earning a livelihood by carrying on the discussions which take place in these rooms. The discussions, no doubt, may be very useful in themselves, and very profitable in a certain sense to the members of these societies, but there is neither livelihood nor profit in the sense of the statute to be derived from any amount of discussion. Therefore I think, plainly, that section of the statute does not apply, and I need hardly say that the second section, although pleaded upon also in the case of the galleries, is just as clearly inapplicable. In both cases, therefore, I think the assessment must be confirmed.
The Court affirmed the determination of the Commissioners in both cases.
Counsel for Appellants— Asher— Robertson. Agents— Campbell & Smith, S.S.C.
Counsel for Inland Revenue—Solicitor-General ( Balfour, Q.C.)— Rutherfurd. Agent— D. Crole, Solicitor of Inland Revenue.