Section 317: Ending of lease of premises
1294.This section deals with the case where the sea walls expenditure is incurred by a lessee and the lease comes to an end before the end of the deduction period. It is based on section 30(3) of ICTA.
1295.The cases to which subsection (3) applies include renewals of the lease to the same person. Then the deduction passes to the immediate reversioner.
1296.In the source legislation “lease” is defined for the purposes of the sea walls provisions in section 24(6)(a) of ICTA. But that definition is redundant and, since it no longer applies to any other provisions, is not rewritten in this Act. It is redundant in the sea walls context for the following reasons.
1297.Section 24(6)(a) of ICTA defines references to a lease as extending only to a lease conferring a right, as against the person whose interest is subject to the lease, to the possession of the premises. It originated as paragraph 16 of Schedule 4 to FA 1963. Notes on Clauses to FA 1963 explain that the reference to possession was to ensure that a “lease” in Schedule A and sections 25 to 31 of ICTA must be one of land and not of incorporeal hereditament. So a lease of sporting rights, or a right of way, would not be covered. However, Street v Mountford [1985], AC 809 established that a “lease” of land which does not confer on the tenant exclusive possession is not, in fact, a lease but a licence.
1298.Section 30(2) of ICTA does not explain the meaning of the transfer of the whole of a person’s interest in any premises or part of any premises. The transfer of the whole of a person’s interest is significant because it can lead to the transfer of entitlement to a deduction for sea walls expenditure. But entitlement to a deduction for sea walls expenditure does not arise anyway unless a person is the owner or tenant of premises. A lease which makes a person a tenant of premises is not a lease of an incorporeal hereditament. So, although section 30 of ICTA does not expressly exclude leases of incorporeal hereditaments, to the extent that they might cover leases of incorporeal hereditaments references to “leases” in that provision are simply redundant.
