Coakley v Commissioner of Valuation
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Barron |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1991 |
| Neutral Citation | 1990 WJSC-HC 1538 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [1988 No. 347 S.S.],No. 347 S.S./1988 |
| Date | 01 January 1991 |
1990 WJSC-HC 1538
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
Citations:
ANNUAL REVISION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRELAND) AMENDMENT ACT 1860 S7
CRONIN (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) V STRAND DAIRY LTD UNREP MURPHY 18.12.85 1986/1/358
CHARLES MCCANN LTD V O CULACHAIN 1986 IR 196
MCCAUSLAND V MINISTRY OF COMMERCE 1956 NI 36
NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD V MARTYN 1988 ILRM 519, 1987 IR 578
CORPORATION TAX ACT 1976
Synopsis:
WORDS AND PHRASES
"Manufactory"
Hereditaments - Valuation - Assessment - Exception - Plant - Grain silos - Ancillary equipment - Conveyors and elevators - (1988/347 SS - Barron J. - 29/5/90) - [1991] 1 I.R. 402
|Denis Coakley & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Valuation|
CASE STATED
Contents
Facts - Findings - Grounds - Absence - Judge retired - (1988/347 SS - Barron J. - 29/5/90) - [1991] 1 I.R. 402
|Denis Coakley & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Valuation|
RATES
Hereditaments
Valuation - Assessment - Exception - Plant - Grain silos - Ancillary equipment - Conveyors and elevators - Manufactory - Case Stated - Contents - Judge's finding of fact - Grounds - Absence - Annual Revision of Rateable Property (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1860, s. 7 - Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, ss. 11, 12, 48 - Valuation Act, 1986, ss. 1–3, 7 - (1988/347 SS - Barron J. - 29/5/90) - [1991] 1 I.R. 402
|Denis Coakley & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Valuation|
Judgment of Mr. Justice Barron delivered the 29th day of May 1990.
This matter comes before the Court by way of a Case Stated by Sean Mac D. Fawsitt, a former Judge of the Circuit Court. It relates to the valuation of a grain handling plant at Kennedy Quay, Cork. Two questions are raised:
(1) Does the plant constitute a manufactory for the purposes of Section 7 of the Annual Revision of Rateable Property (Ireland) Amendment Act 1860, and
(2) Do the silos forming part of the plant constitute machinery other than for the production of motor power which should be exempt within the terms of Section 7 of the said Act.
The nature of the handling plant is fully set out in the Case Stated and in the precis of evidence of the witnesses which forms part of the Case Stated. Plant and machinery and the use to which it is put is set out in the findings of fact in paragraphs 5(a), (b) and (c) of the Case Stated as follows:
(a) The list of equipment and bins located in the subject premises include six grain bins of 1,040 tonne capacity, two grain bins of 475 tonne capacity, two 14 tonne outlay loading bins, one 30 tonne outloading bin, two mobile suction units, one road intake hopper, chain conveyors, elevators, dust extraction filter and fan dust extraction pipe work, one polytiner cyclone fan, six automatic level probes, temperature monitoring censors, manual or automatic diverter valves and slides and two 60 tonne weighbridges.
(b) A silo may be defined as a group of bins located in a cluster. These are serviced by a common network of conveyors and elevators to feed and empty the bins. The elevators and conveyors are located outside of the bins. Bins are used for handling and storage of material to ensure that all such handling is totally automatic and no manual handling is required. The end of the bins are sloped to ensure self-emptying of the bins by gravity which carries the grain from the bins to conveyors located beneath the bins.
(c) The bins are filled with grain by the use of the elevators and conveyors situated outside of the bins. All the bins are interlinked by conveyors and elevators and there are facilities for filling and emptying every bin into any other bin. These bins have no function unless accompanied by the feeding and discharge equipment located outside of them.
The findings of fact then sets out a description of the various handling processes to which the grain may be subjected to adapt it for sale. These processes are: intake of material; sampling of material; weighing and stock control; dust extraction; turning; mixing and blending; grain cleaning; temperature control; pest control and outloading.
The Case Stated shows that in the course of the evidence it was accepted by the Commissioner of Valuation that the conveyors, elevators, dust extractors etc. were not valued since they were accepted by the Commissioner of Valuation to constitute machinery. What was in issue was whether or not the handling plant constituted a manufactory for the purposes of Section 7 of the Act and whether or not the silos and weighbridge constituted machinery. The finding of the learned Circuit Court Judge on these issues of fact is set out at paragraph 11 of the Case Stated as follows:
"I found on the evidence that the plant constituted a manufactory and that the silos and weighbridge constituted machinery for the purposes of Section 7. The evidence was that the grain which is handled is sold for agricultural purposes."
I am satisfied from the authorities cited to me and the findings of fact in relation thereto contained in paragraphs 5(b) and 5(c) of the Case Stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denis Coakley Company Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation
...1860 Act and, secondly, as to whether the silos constituted machinery other than for the production of motive power. Barron J. held ([1991] 1 I.R. 402) that the plant did not constitute a manufactory for the purposes of the 1860 Act and therefore it was not necessary to answer the second qu......
-
VA95.6.010 – Macardle Moore & Company Limited
...beer is in the tanks. Mr. O'Neill referred to the decision of Barron J. in Denis Coakley & Company Limited v. Commissioner of Valuation [1991] IR402 and submitted that the treatment of the B.B.T's as rateable would be inconsistent and would be "failing to treat like plants in a like manner"......