Vacancy: Introduction of Rates Study for Shooting/Deer Forests (?)
- Thread starter wytonpjs
- Start date
Wonder if these people play Scrabble?
TringSaint
Well-Known Member
I literally have no idea what they are proposing!
Why can’t these organisations just use plain English and not this fancy consultancy bullcr@p!
Sporting rates were reintroduced a few years ago in Scotland.
A recent FOI in the Borders showed that the vast majority of businesses qualify for 100% exemption and that those rates that were collected were highly unlikely to cover the cost of running the scheme.
Hopefully this study will prove that and this unnecessary administrative burden will be removed again.
If it is run with Civil servants , it will cost more than it should and fail to break even ( meaning the taxpayer will get a bigger bill ). We don't really need the ins and outs this is how it will go - AS IT ALWAYS IS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED
NickJ
Well-Known Member
Indeed, I fear it was a purely political move from a party of envy
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
Where they not advised exactly that at the consultation phase.
And its why they were phased out in the 1st place.
But as normal Holyrood knows best
II.2.4) Description of the procurement
The objectives of this research are to review the impacts of re-introducing rates (removing the exemption) for shooting and deer forests on the valuation roll. It aims to assess:1. The economic impact of bringing shooting activity onto the valuation roll.
2. The extent to which the expected activities were brought into scope and raise revenue.
The research should highlight lessons learnt and future considerations.
II.2.5) Award criteria
Criteria below:Quality criterion: Understanding the requirement / Weighting: 20
Quality criterion: Contract Methodology / Weighting: 20
Quality criterion: Team and Experience / Weighting: 20
Quality criterion: Impact / Weighting: 10
Price / Weighting: 30
II.2.7) Duration of the contract, framework agreement or dynamic purchasing system
Duration in months: 3This contract is subject to renewal: No
Yes, yes and yes!
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
If sporting estates are to be taxed on their wildlife conservation efforts why not charities like the RSPB?
Happy stalker
Well-Known Member
Anyone with a stalking lease is liable for this (Scotland) as has been said before most if not all get 100% relief it’s a pain in the ass having to apply for it every year
It's worse than that - anyone with "shootable" ground (which is pretty much all land) is liable for sporting rates, wh!ether there is any shooting activity or not!
The one get out clause is to prove that any shooting activity is purely for "pest" control and has no "sporting" element. This is one of the key reasons why FLS have end a just about all of their leases and why they are unlikely to offer ne one for the foreseeable.
The National Forest Estate is to big to qualify for rate relief under the Small Business Bonus Scheme, that is available to most land owners. They have been fighting the Assessor since the reintroduction of Sporting Rates and I belief have yet to pay over anything - Scottish Government (reluctantly) cover any shortfall in FLS funding - oh the irony of FLS having to be propped up b y SG to pay rate to.....SG
Happy stalker
Well-Known Member
Aye it’s a total shambles, it was reinstated by recent governments purely as a tax on sporting estates as you said any land where shooting takes place, leases now are classed as pest control deer control
Similar threads
