Conteyyvporary Agricultural Law. 97 



Act, and therefore that no deduction was allowable in respect 

 of them in arriving at the assessable site value of the land. The 

 Court said that " building land " in Section 25 must not be 

 taken to mean any land upon which houses were physically 

 capable of being built, but land as to which there was at the 

 given time a reasonable and approximate chance of its being 

 laid out and developed for building purposes. The land in 

 question did not come under that description. 



Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Smyth (83 L.J.K.B., 

 913 ; 1914, 3 K.B., 406) is a still more important case on the 

 same subject. In that case Mr. Justice Scrutton held that in 

 valuing land " in its then condition " on April 30, 1909, as the 

 valuer is required to do under Section 25, Sub-section 1, of the 

 Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, in order to arrive at the "gross 

 value " and " total value " of the land he must include any 

 sums attributable to the value of the tenant right, i.e. the 

 tenant's interest in unexhausted manures and tillages, but that 

 deductions cannot be made under Sub-section 4 (d) of the 

 same Section in respect of such increased value in order to 

 arrive at the assessable site value of the land. Further, he 

 held that in valuing land "in its then condition" all unsevered 

 vegetable growths, whether natural or artificial, transitory or 

 permanent, which of course include growing grass, must be 

 included in the " gross value " of the land under Section 25, 

 Sub-section 1, but the value of such growing things, including 

 grass, must be deducted in arriving at the " assessable site 

 value." The same learned judge further held that the value 

 of a private road to the farm could not be deducted in arriving 

 at the site value of the land as it could not be said to be a 

 " structure " under Section 25, Sub-section 2. A " structure " 

 the value of which must be so deducted must be something 

 artificially erected, constructed, or put together of a certain 

 degree of size and permanence which is still maintained as an 

 artificial erection, or which, though not so maintained, has not 

 become indistinguishable in bounds from the natural earth 

 surrounding. Another case of the same kind is Inland Revenue 

 Commissioners v. Hunter (1914, 3 K.B., 423) where it was 

 decided by the same learned judge that in ascertaining the 

 value of agricultural land which has to be found under 

 Section 25, Sub-section 1 of the Act, the value of the land for 

 sporting purposes is not to be included, although under Section 

 7 of the Act, which enacts that increment value duty shall not 

 be charged in respect of agricultural land Avhile that land has 

 no higher value than its market value at the time for agricul- 

 tural purposes, it is provided that any value for sporting 

 purposes shall be treated as value for agricultural purposes 

 only except when the value for any such purpose exceeds the 



VOL. 75. E 



