armsid Posted November 23, 2017 Report Share Posted November 23, 2017 just back from stalking in scotland and was told scot, gov.is /has brought in business rates on land with sporting /shooting rights of £5.00per hectare can anyone confirm this as this will cost stalking /shooting syndicates landowners alot of money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted November 23, 2017 Report Share Posted November 23, 2017 Wouldn't surrise me, it will encourge large estates to sell off unnecessary land for redistribution, sounds like an snp type thing to do, although I don' know anything for sure either sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted November 23, 2017 Report Share Posted November 23, 2017 If I remember correctly we had to pay similar rates on shooting rights in England 20yrs ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted November 23, 2017 Report Share Posted November 23, 2017 Yes they have. Will it effect stalking syndicates or shooting in general?? Haven't got a clue. its not quite that simple, most shoots or syndicates 'should' qualify for 100% exemptions. Its only shoots over 10'000 acres that should be laible, depending on how it is applied I can see it actually benefitting shooters as some estates might try to get rid of sporting leases so might lease areas just so there not liable (as its the sporting tenant who is liable) Really far too early yet to tell wot will happen, they reckon 80-90% of bills will be wrong anyway, it is a typical SNP cluster @uck Althou its ur local councils and not Holryrood that have to chase it up, will be costing councils an absolute fortune and getting very little back. Walker u are right its the exact samething sort of rejiigged to be even more ineffecient, and they scrapped it originally as it cost more to implement than it ever brought in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpowder Posted November 24, 2017 Report Share Posted November 24, 2017 According to the owner of a local large commercial pheasant shoot, he shall not be charged or shall have the rates rebated to him. Another example of overpaid , underemployed left wing politicians trying to justify their existance. Blackpowder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted November 24, 2017 Report Share Posted November 24, 2017 22 hours ago, scotslad said: Yes they have. Will it effect stalking syndicates or shooting in general?? Haven't got a clue. its not quite that simple, most shoots or syndicates 'should' qualify for 100% exemptions. Its only shoots over 10'000 acres that should be laible, depending on how it is applied I can see it actually benefitting shooters as some estates might try to get rid of sporting leases so might lease areas just so there not liable (as its the sporting tenant who is liable) Really far too early yet to tell wot will happen, they reckon 80-90% of bills will be wrong anyway, it is a typical SNP cluster @uck Althou its ur local councils and not Holryrood that have to chase it up, will be costing councils an absolute fortune and getting very little back. Walker u are right its the exact samething sort of rejiigged to be even more ineffecient, and they scrapped it originally as it cost more to implement than it ever brought in. Very much this. A whole chunk of money wasted on studies and consultation, pulling together a plan that didn't stand up to scrutiny and was not workable, so cobble together some other solution that means there is a 100% rebate for the absolute vast majority of shoots and where there is not a rebate there is wiggle room to get out of it so it will make zero income for the Scottish government, yet has a whole load of administrative costs associated for all concerned. Politically motivated in order to tick a box to say to the hard of thinking followers, look we have stuck it to the landowners as we said we would. Shame it costs every tax payer in the land for absolutely zero benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonepark Posted November 24, 2017 Report Share Posted November 24, 2017 Just wait, they are undertaking a review of the small business bonus scheme this year (rateable values under £15k are currently excempt), if this is removed every small business (including shooting) will be hit. There is so interest to adding all land to the list, but this would have a few more hurdles to clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleachan Posted November 25, 2017 Report Share Posted November 25, 2017 Not aimed at shooting sports per se. Much shooting takes place on Mickey Mouse sized parcels, by scottish standards, and very many shoots don't actually make much money, most do well to cover costs and very many run at a loss. So it will very much depend on the ground let. It looks as if very many shoots will fall outside the current small business threshold. Different for my neighbour whose 62,000ac/100 square miles will attract rate liability, that won't affect shooting, because he doesn't let any. I pay council tax, why should his holding be rates exempt? Especially given the fact that he, and all non domestic landowners, receive support through agricultural grants paid per hectare on a considerably greater scale than the proposed rates (of course the grant scheme is likely to change and be less supportive for estates post brexit, you'll get an idea of the likely support for the continuation of the current system and the likely public sentiment here: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/648108/EU-farming-cash-squandered-wealthy-David-Cameron-wealthy-uncle ). A little more clarity on the implications of the reintroduction of rates: http://www.saffery.com/news-and-events/press-releases/2017/02-october-clarity-on-sporting-rates-in-scotland How effective it'll be and how it will work, if it works at all, remains to be seen. e.g. Will landowners, very many of whom hiked let costs post 95 on the abolition of rates (the tenant is liable for rates, so when rates were dropped many landowners simply gobbled up their tenants windfall by upping rents), adjust rents downwardly to keep them competitive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted November 25, 2017 Report Share Posted November 25, 2017 I'm a wee bit ccnfused by ur 2nd paragraph Uilleachan. Wether or not u shoot on the ground is irrelevant to the shooting rates, as is if the shoot makes a profit or not. As has been said the devil will be in the detail and how the exemptions are dealt with. I have already heard they are talking about adding water rates in the future, wether that will affet many shoots I don't know The 1 groupi can see affected will be landowners/shooting tenant who already run small businesses so have already used there exemptions so will be liable to pay the rates. But I can imagine they could either lease the ground or change there name/start a new company to dodge the rates. The folki can see being most affected are estates that don't shoot or let any ground is they will be laible for the whole lot as long as over 10K acres Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Callahan Posted November 28, 2017 Report Share Posted November 28, 2017 Shooting rates is an old thing... IMO it should not have been done away with, and should be charged across the whole of the UK. The Tories would never reintroduce it, as that would mean taxing the richest... Shooting generates a lot of money, and most estates will be able to stand tall after paying rates. So it's only right these commercial businesses pay something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted November 28, 2017 Report Share Posted November 28, 2017 4 hours ago, Harry Callahan said: Shooting rates is an old thing... IMO it should not have been done away with, and should be charged across the whole of the UK. The Tories would never reintroduce it, as that would mean taxing the richest... Shooting generates a lot of money, and most estates will be able to stand tall after paying rates. So it's only right these commercial businesses pay something. Fair play if that's wot u think. But have u actually looked in detail at sporting rates and the way they are charged. It actually has nothing to do with shooting but the potential for shooting. So if badger hugging anti brain may owned 1000 acres he would be just as liable for sporting rates as a big commercial operation of 1000 acres and both would/could be due the same exact same amount of rates. The reason they were abolished is they cost so much to enforce. I bet there is only a handful of shoots big enough to have to pay sporting rates in the whole of Dumfriesshire (need to be over 10k acres) Shoots turn over massive ammounts of money each year but there is actually very little profit, shoots are always going bust. The old saying about football clubs would be equally true about shoots, "the only way to make a small fortune with a shoot is to start off with a big fortune" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Callahan Posted November 28, 2017 Report Share Posted November 28, 2017 1 hour ago, scotslad said: Fair play if that's wot u think. But have u actually looked in detail at sporting rates and the way they are charged. It actually has nothing to do with shooting but the potential for shooting. So if badger hugging anti brain may owned 1000 acres he would be just as liable for sporting rates as a big commercial operation of 1000 acres and both would/could be due the same exact same amount of rates. The reason they were abolished is they cost so much to enforce. I bet there is only a handful of shoots big enough to have to pay sporting rates in the whole of Dumfriesshire (need to be over 10k acres) Shoots turn over massive ammounts of money each year but there is actually very little profit, shoots are always going bust. The old saying about football clubs would be equally true about shoots, "the only way to make a small fortune with a shoot is to start off with a big fortune" Aye, it should have been based on activity... but that is a more complex way to do it - and easier to get around. There's plenty, shooting is THE income. So why shouldn't they pay? Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The estates affected can, and will, up their fees for days. And most big day clientele can afford it without batting an eye. The estates which are N/A carry on as before. They were abolished because revenues were so low it wasn't worth it - there was little money in shooting in the late 80's and 90's. Times have now changed for many estates, despite what they tell you. Brain May? You should do your research - he has the deer controlled on the land he owns!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted November 28, 2017 Report Share Posted November 28, 2017 But shoots will already pay tax on any profits they make. Why should they pay tax twice? Yes shooting is the income, but there is still plenty of expenses to come of that 30 quid a bird, infact I'm surprised shoots can sell birds for that. In the 80's most of the shooting round these parts was all in house but still plenty of big days going about even back then. Ps the brain may thing was to show wether or not u shoot on the ground is irrelevant, and antis/non shooters will be charged the exact same sporting rate as Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stagboy Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) Still much uncertainty about details, but the rate is assessed on theoretical potential, whether there is any actual shooting or not. The landowner cannot simply parcel his shooting rights into little bits to get under the radar - that's much too obvious a dodge. And it is the owner who has to pay. So shoot letting cost will have to go up, to the detriment of everybody who shoots. Incidentally, there is no public money subsidising shooting; the agricultural payments are for farming, not shooting, and the entitlements reflect that. Moreover, the level of payment per hectare for hill land is rock bottom. It is the inbye that gets the dosh. Most sporting estates are subsidised or underwritten by private money earned outside agriculture or shooting. The Nats have big landowners in their sights, as usual, but the shooting community as a whole is going to suffer the collateral damage. Edited November 30, 2017 by stagboy typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Alright stagboy, I agree with most of wot u have said. But it is the shooting tenant Not the landowner who is liable. I know of a few local farms who do not own the shooting rights but do own the land. Also I know of folk who really only shoot foxes and occasional pheasant yet have been charged for shooting rates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleachan Posted December 1, 2017 Report Share Posted December 1, 2017 Yes it's the occupier of the ground in question, owner or tenant, thats liable for rates. Unless the ground is, or is part of a title that is, less than 10k acres. The demise of the sporting estate began on the outset of WWI, the loss of entire fortunes in the depression didn't help, at which time land values were also halved, hot on the heels came WWII, then the loss of empire and the income that came with it. The result was that estates became largely economically fallow. Until quite recently, and for the previous two hundred years. Agricultural forestry hill and deer forest, ground, paid rates at a percentage of the rentable value. In an attempt at economic stimuli (or a bung to their mates, depending on your political persuasion) rates on ground were gradually removed by concession. In Scotland thats 90% of the land now outside of the local tax system. Whats changed and why sporting estates? Estate value is the answer. Many are still economically stagnant and as most are bought for investment these days thats not likely to change, but as investments they've been doing very well this last few years and there are no signs of it reversing, as it did in the 1920's. Returning 10k + acre estates back into the local taxation system isn't unreasonable, given the reversal of fortune currently being enjoyed. A case too can be made for sections of the Scots forestry game. Agriculture, as a sector, is on it's **** and we're entering a time of great uncertainty, so there's no reasonable case to be made there, for the time being at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stagboy Posted December 1, 2017 Report Share Posted December 1, 2017 21 hours ago, scotslad said: But it is the shooting tenant Not the landowner who is liable. My mistake. Thanks for the clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.