- (1.) The question here is whether it was open to the general commissioners for the division of Macclesfiled to decide that the purchase, development and sale of a piece of land was an adventure in the nature of trade giving rise to a charge for income-tax under Case I of Schedule D. On an appeal by the taxpayer to the High Court by way of case stated, Vinelott J. held that it was. The taxpayer now brings a further appeal to this court. In both courts he has contended that the true and only reasonable conclusion from the facts found by the commissioners is that the transaction was not an adventure in the nature of trade.
(2.) The facts are fully stated or referred to in the judgment of Vinelott. J.,1989 STC 333, where the case stated is also set out in full. I will restate the facts so far as the arguments advanced on this appeal make is necessary to do so.
(3.) From June 1974 to November 1982 the taxpayer, Mr. William Brian Kirkham, worked on his own account as a general dealer and demolition contractor doing a limited amount of farming as well. His work included plant hire subcontract work, leveling, draining and ditching. During that period he and his family lived at Purdy House, 81, Rudyard Road, Biddulph Moor, Stoke-on-Trent. The facts on which the outcome of this appeal mainly depend are stated in paragraph 5(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the case stated. I will restate them in the commissioners own words, although I have rearranged the sentences in paragraph 5(iii) so that they conform with what both sides agree is their chronological sequence : "(ii) Whilst living at Purdy House the [taxpayer] experienced difficulties with the local authority over, the storage of demolition materials at his mothers address at Fairview, Biddulph Moor, Staffordshire. (iii) An opportunity presented itself to the [taxpayer] to carry out demolition contract involved the demolition of one of the two mills which were on site, together with five cottages and some outbuildings. After the contract had been concluded the owner of Havannah Mills offered to sell the [taxpayer] what was left, which by that time comprised of [sic] one remaining mill and ten acres of adjoining land. The site was acquired principally to provide office and storage space for the [taxpayers] demolition and plant hire business. Havannah Mills was purchased in the [taxpayers] sole name for the sum of Pounds 17,000 by a conveyance dated 9 May 1978. Of the purchase price Pounds 8,000 was left outstanding under a private mortgage with the vendor, Mr. Radivan. Subsequently the [taxpayer] used the site for the storage of materials for use in connection with his business. He used part of the mill as his office. He grew a few crops on the land and bought a few calves for fattening up for resale; but the level of his farming activities in this regard were very limited to the extent that they were never recorded in his books of account. The site continued to be used in these various ways until its sale in October 1982. (iv) Subsequently in or about October 1978 the [taxpayer] applied for planning permission for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling at Havannah Mills. That application was refused. A further application was submitted to the local planning authority and outline planning permission was granted on 22 August 1980 for the erection of an industrial/agricultural dwelling house for the [taxpayer] at The old Mill, Havannah Lane, Eaton..." Before the judge an additional fact was agreed, namely that the contract to purchase Havannah Mills was entered into by the taxpayer in the summer of 1977 at the latest. It is also agreed that the reference in paragraph 5(iv) to October 1978 as being the month when the taxpayer entered into the contract before making my application for planning permission.;