O'Grady (Inspector of Taxes) v Roscommon Race Course Committee

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Flaherty J.
• Judgment Date: 26 March 1996
• Neutral Citation: 1996 WJSC-SC 2070
• Docket Number: [S.C. Nos. 109 and 162 of 1993],109/162-93
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 26 March 1996

1996 WJSC-SC 2070

THE SUPREME COURT

O'Flaherty J.,

Blayney J.,

Barrington J.,

109/162-93

O'GRADY v. ROSCOMMON RACE COMMITTEE

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL O'GRADY INSPECTOR OF TAXES

Appellant

AND

ROSCOMMON RACE COMMITTEE

Respondent

Citations:

O CULACHAIN V MCMULLAN BROTHERS 1995 2 ILRM 498

BROWNE V BURNLEY FOOTBALL & ATHLETIC CO LTD 53 TC 357

COOKE V BEACH STATION CARAVANS LTD 49 TC 514

O SRIANAIN (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) V LAKEVIEW LTD UNREP MURPHY 8.10.84 1984/8/2656

YARMOUTH V FRANCE 1887 19 QBD 647

Synopsis:

REVENUE

Income tax

Assessment - Profits - Computation - Expenses - Deduction - Allowances - Race course - Viewing stand - Renovation - Repairs - Capital expenditure - Allowances for expenditure on plant - Stand being part of the apparatus used by taxpayer in conducting his business - Income Tax Act, 1967 (No. 6), s. 241 - (109/93 - Supreme Court - 26/3/96) - {1996] 1 I.R. 163 - [1996] 2 ILRM 81

|O'Grady v. Roscommon Race Committee|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Plant"

Income tax - Assessment - Profits - Computation - Expenses - Deduction - Allowances - Race course - Viewing stand - Renovations - Repairs - Capital expenditure - Allowance for expenditure on plant - Stand being part of the apparatus used by taxpayer in conducting his business - (109/93 - Supreme Court - 26/3/96)

|O'Grady v. Roscommon Race Committee|

1 Judgment delivered on the 26th day of March, 1996 by O'Flaherty J. [NEM DISS]

2 This is an appeal brought by the Inspector of Taxes from the judgment and order of the High Court (Carroll J.) of the 6th November, 1992 in which she held in favour of the tax-payer in deciding that a stand at Roscommon Race Course was "plant" in answer to a case stated by the Circuit Court (His Honour Judge O'Higgins).

3 The facts proved or admitted in the case stated, and which were also reproduced in the judgment of the High Court, were as follows:-

4 a A. The respondent committee is engaged in the trade of promoting and organising horse races at their racecourse for viewing by the public. The public are admitted on payment of an entrance fee. The horse races take place on the race track at the course in Roscommon. There has been at the racecourse a substantial stand for many years.

5 b B. The stand is used by patrons for watching horse races. It raises patrons to a higher level to view the races and helps to create an atmosphere of excitement during the running of the race because of the close contact between them. It also provides shelter from the elements. When each race is over some of the patrons leave the stand and walk around the racecourse enclosure to view horses, to buy drinks, meet friends, place bets and so forth.

6 c C. During 1981 and 1982 the committee carried out extensive work at the racecourse, mainly affecting the patrons" stand. This work can be categorised broadly as follows:-

7 (i) The upper section of terracing and the passageway between upper and lower terracing was retained together with the existing columns, beams and storage area under this terracing. The lower terracing was altered as follows. Narrow steps towards the front of the existing stand were covered in and replaced with new wider steps, placed over them, which extended the terraced area significantly outwards. The new steps have a rise of 7.5 inches of which 2.5 inches is achieved by means of a slope from the front to the rear of each step. The original step had a simple rise of 15 inches and one person only could stand on each step while two people may stand on the new step. As a result of the said works there was an increase of approximately 40% in the standing area;

8 (ii) the existing bar at ground floor level under the stand was extended backwards by approximately 50% of its length;

9 (iii) the external walls to the rear and side of the stand were removed and replaced with new cavity walls and glazing; the existing walls were saturated, wet and crumbling;

10 (iv) a new reserve bar was constructed at the upper level of the stand over the extension to the existing ground floor bar. This provided viewing facilities over the course;

11 (v) the existing stand had a hay-shed type roof of corrugated galvanised steel which had been repaired from time to time in the past. The new roof consisted of profiled steel over a greater stand area being of a different design to the old roof and incorporating new guttering and drainage systems. The former supports for the original roof had been cast iron pillars and these were replaced by steel pillar supports which extended over the extended terrace area being the existing terrace area and the new rear extension housing the bars. The roof in its entirety was replaced;

12 (vi) the work undertaken in the stand provided a new and enlarged stand with new facilities for patrons in the form of a viewing bar as well as increasing the stand capacity by approximately 40%. The bar under the terrace was extended by 50% approximately.

13 It was accepted in the High Court that the two bars did not constitute "plant". There was also some debate in the High...