Shooting tax in scotland

[Reloader708]

So I try to think I am not too thick....Have just taken on a couple of hundred acres of mixed arable, horse paddock and small woodland for rabbit and deer "Pest Control" and there has never been any other types of sporting shooting done e.g pheasant and no intention in the future.

This is for free, the farmer (owner not a tenant) wants the rabbits and deer gone so no clients, money changing hands etc.

So is there a potential situation in the near future where he will tip up and say "sorry mate I am going to have to charge you £££ to shoot the free roaming wild deer on my land as the Scottish govt has now classed this as a sporting activity and not pest control....
Thanks
Trying to get educated

This is exactly the situation. Perhaps lots on here dont full realise the potential of this stupid move. Its bad enough from the perspective of someone not being able to afford to shoot recreationally, but imagine being a farmer, crofter or land owner that suddenly potentially has up to a 12k tax bill.

 

[rab19]

Would you believe it.....Just had a mate on the phone who is a head green keeper on a local golf course.
A committee member has asked him to find out what are Sporting Rights and what they involve as they have someone (not me) who carries out free rabbit control and takes a few Roe deer now and again as payment in kind....

 

[HonestJohn]

Checking online, sporting leaseholders seem to be required to pay rates, even if they don’t pay a lease fee.

 

[Reloader708]

and yet some shooting folk still vote snp, deserve all they get

Surely not, I cant get my head around anyone voting for that complete bunch of wasters.
Marxists ffs!

 

[Happy stalker]

It does not help that folk who are buying up leases from which ever forestry company and getting full tax relief on their leases and then letting it out again and taking out paying guests to generate an income and creating a business, the government I am sure are aware of this so everyone is being targeted

 

[Happy stalker]

Surely not, I cant get my head around anyone voting for that complete bunch of wasters.
Marxists ffs!

I am pretty sure that the vast majority of snp voters are townies and non shooters, we are sadly a minority and getting smaller

 

[Chris Richardson]

I am pretty sure that the vast majority of snp voters are townies and non shooters, we are sadly a minority and getting smaller

i wouldnt be so sure .....

 

[Happy stalker]

i wouldnt be so sure .....

I am pretty sure why?………because I live here

 

[slider]

But they already don’t qualify for the small business relief due to their size, so what changes for them?

The rating liability sits with the occupier and they currently pass the rates bill on to the occupier - i.e. the stalking tenant, who is (in the vast majority of cases) eligible for 100% rates relief

 

[slider]

just to be clear, Scottish sporting rates are assessed on shooting rights and deer forests, based on their hypothetical rental value. Technically it doesn't matter what what is actually happening on the land, there could be no shooting or stalking or a lease for payment of £1m a year, it makes no difference. However induvial assessments were too complicated so they assessed everything at £5 per hectare. That said due to the complexity of scottish landownership, many people never received a bill. There was a small business relief which covered most small bits of land. The SNP now plan to change this relief to where deer management, environmental management or vermin control are undertaken ‘solely’. This is a blatant attempt to save FLS and various other crooked semi-public landowners a massive rates bill. I have no idea how this relief will work in practice, because it goes against the hypothetical rental value above. remove old pheasant pens? have an unofficial agreement, pay in cash?

not quite correct. Rateable value assessments are based on a table depending on land type - for instance the rate for deer forests is different from farmland

FLS is a Scottish Govt agency so applying rates to them is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul

 

[Chris Richardson]

I am pretty sure why?………because I live here

we had a pro stalker and guide on here a bit back saying he voted SNP

 

[Happy stalker]

we had a pro stalker and guide on here a bit back saying he voted SNP

One out of a total population of around 5 million brilliant…….. the folk who actually live here I would say know better

 

[muddy42]

not quite correct. Rateable value assessments are based on a table depending on land type - for instance the rate for deer forests is different from farmland

FLS is a Scottish Govt agency so applying rates to them is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul

sorry yes, I think £5 per hectare is the reference rate for forestry.

One piece of advice I have heard is that everyone should appeal, the more appeals the better to bung up the system and hopefully make it unworkable.

 

[jcampbellsmith]

sorry yes, I think £5 per hectare is the reference rate for forestry.

One piece of advice I have heard is that everyone should appeal, the more appeals the better to bung up the system and hopefully make it unworkable.

No, the window for appeals closed five years after the tax was introduced.

Regards

JCS

 

[Heym SR20]

We, or our landowners are either just going to have suck up the costs.

Or perhaps wealthy individuals, mostly from down South who will take over the leases and pay good money. They will come up, shoot the prime deer and then leave.

Alternatively, because of cost of sporting rights, they will turn into commercial scale driven shooting.

The rest of deer management will fall onto compulsory culls funded by government.

What ever the case all of us who do a lot of the stalking on a no fee, no cost, keep the venison basis are pretty much buggered.

And frankly, given the reductions in many places of deer herds, the population can no longer produce viable stalking given the additional costs that will be passed on to all of us. Someone down south probably gets better value for money flying out to New Zealand or South Africa than taking Scottish Stalking. Many overseas shooting visitors have already gone away from Scotland.

Net effect is large holes in many rural businesses, especially during late Autumn and Winter. To be honest, who else apart from shooters, stalkers and a few made mountaineers wants to be out in the Scottish Wilds at this time of year?

Yet another own goal in downward spiral caused by the SNP.

 

[slider]

sorry yes, I think £5 per hectare is the reference rate for forestry.

One piece of advice I have heard is that everyone should appeal, the more appeals the better to bung up the system and hopefully make it unworkable.

The appeal process was against the rateable value. The process was completed a number of years ago and the RV is now estblish on all land.
Until now people have been able to apply for a rates exemption for the rates levies against thst RV.
What is happening now is that the Govt are proposing to remove that exemption. It will all be down to how they define the exemption where the land is purely used for deer management, vermin control or environmental benefit.
At the end of the day that definition will be black and white.
I suspect deer control will be OK where there is no paid lease and game shoots will be fcuked.

 

[slider]

What ever the case all of us who do a lot of the stalking on a no fee, no cost, keep the venison basis are pretty much buggered.

I think otherwise.
Stalking income is a miniscule proportion of s commercial forests income and the need for deer management won't diminish.
This may well push commercial foresters to do away with leases and keep on the competent stalkers as paid deer managers for a paid (although nominal) fee.

 

[Reloader708]

I think otherwise.
Stalking income is a miniscule proportion of s commercial forests income and the need for deer management won't diminish.
This may well push commercial foresters to do away with leases and keep on the competent stalkers as paid deer managers for a paid (although nominal) fee.

It will be interesting to see. Currently we only let stalking leases to off set the tax liability, the amount of deer management carried out by the various syndicates on our ground is largely irrelevant.
Will we bother with the hassle of letting to recreational stalkers going forwards if they aren't willing to foot the tax bill? I dont know.

 

[Reloader708]

Also let's be realistic here, the amount of tax raised from this is negligible, its nothing to do with raising funds. Its solely to stick another nail in the coffin of shooting sports and private land ownership by a socialist government.
Incidentally, the original idea was to raise money for community buy outs.....another communist idea.

 

[slider]

It will be interesting to see. Currently we only let stalking leases to off set the tax liability, the amount of deer management carried out by the various syndicates on our ground is largely irrelevant.
Will we bother with the hassle of letting to recreational stalkers going forwards if they aren't willing to foot the tax bill? I dont know.

What type of ground are you talking about?
Where i shoot in commercial forestry deer management is imperative and our forester is frequently asking us to concentrate on restocks and other vulnerable areas.
There are of course syndicates where the members are only interested in trophies and "the stalking experience". Equally there are others who are intently focused on meeting cull targets and "doing the job".