Tax Avoidance – the lawful avoidance or reduction of tax by arranging one’s affairs in order to minimise the amount of tax payable

In this case, there was an intention to occupy and the storage of 16 pallets of documents which are required by law to be stored cannot be said to be trifling

Actual occupation does not amount to rateable occupation unless it is also beneficial

• Actual occupation does not amount to rateable occupation unless it is also beneficial

• Abandoned goods do not amount to rateable occupation (LCC v Hackney BC [1928] 2KB 588)

• Goods of small value to the ratepayer has been held to amount to beneficial occupation (Appleton v Westminster Corporation [1910] AC 7)

Judge Jarman said that by relying on Furniss v Dawson, the district judge misdirected himself by disregarding the steps taken to occupy the warehouse

• Judge Jarman said that by relying on Furniss v Dawson, the district judge misdirected himself by disregarding the steps taken to occupy the warehouse

• The district judge found that the documentation stored was of benefit which MSSWL were bound by law to retain

• Judge Jarman concluded “it cannot be properly said that the storage was of no practical benefit”

• He emphasised the point by stating “The fact that this storage could have been continued at other venues does not render storage at the warehouse of no practical benefit”

Judge Jarman found that the first question in the case stated must be answered in the negative

• Judge Jarman found that the first question in the case stated must be answered in the negative

• There should have been a finding that there was rateable occupation while the pallets were stored on the premises

The district judge found that if there was occupation, then it continued between January and July 2010

• The district judge found that if there was occupation, then it continued between January and July 2010

• The Council tried to support this conclusion on the basis that it had been used for storage and that it remained ready for use

Mr Glover QC (for Makro) argued that when MSSWL removed the goods on 12 January 2010, there was nothing to show that MPL resumed occupation or intended to let space

• Mr Glover QC (for Makro) argued that when MSSWL removed the goods on 12 January 2010, there was nothing to show that MPL resumed occupation or intended to let space

• The intention was that it would not be occupied before July

• The intention to re-occupy in July, if the property was not sold, does not amount to an intention to occupy between January and July.

Judge Jarman preferred Mr Glover’s arguments

• Judge Jarman preferred Mr Glover’s arguments

• The second question in the case stated must also be answered in the negative because there was no intention amounting to occupation or use from January to July 2010

• It follows that the liability orders must be quashed

• The Council submitted that such an outcome means that a scheme to avoid paying rates for six months has succeeded and that could not have been foreseen when the 2008 reforms were made

Judge Jarman said “Insofar as that may be relevant I cannot accept the latter submission. It has been recognised for a considerable amount of time that ratepayers or potential ratepayers can and do organise their affairs as to avoid paying rates. In Gage, Alverstone CJ dealt with this question and stated that if the ratepayer thought that she would not be within the charging act by going out of possession, she was quite entitled to do so. In my judgement the same applies to going in and then out of occupation. It has often been emphasised that the court is not a court of morals, but of law. If the outcome of this case is seen as unacceptable then it is for the legislature to determine whether further reform is needed”

• Judge Jarman said “Insofar as that may be relevant I cannot accept the latter submission. It has been recognised for a considerable amount of time that ratepayers or potential ratepayers can and do organise their affairs as to avoid paying rates. In Gage, Alverstone CJ dealt with this question and stated that if the ratepayer thought that she would not be within the charging act by going out of possession, she was quite entitled to do so. In my judgement the same applies to going in and then out of occupation. It has often been emphasised that the court is not a court of morals, but of law. If the outcome of this case is seen as unacceptable then it is for the legislature to determine whether further reform is needed”

Actual occupation is established if there is a clear intention to use the premises, however small that the actual use might be. By contrast a slight use without any intention to occupy does not amount to rateable occupation. The latter would include chattels of little value as in Wirral v Lane 1979 or abandoned goods

• Actual occupation is established if there is a clear intention to use the premises, however small that the actual use might be. By contrast a slight use without any intention to occupy does not amount to rateable occupation. The latter would include chattels of little value as in Wirral v Lane 1979 or abandoned goods

• Beneficial occupation requires the use of the premises to provide some benefit, however small, to the ratepayer. The fact that the goods could be stored by the ratepayer elsewhere does not render the storage to be of no practical benefit