Property receipts from aerodrome licences and leases were not separate trading profits and stayed within the property schedules.

Receipts from granting licences, leases and allied aerodrome facilities were treated as arising from the exploitation of land and proprietary rights, and from occupation already taxed under Schedules A and B, rather than from a separate trading activity chargeable under Schedule D. The majority held that the limited provision of a groundsman and first-aid equipment did not change the essential character of the receipts, and any element attributable to equipment was too minor to matter. Authorities involving substantial services or trading operations were distinguished. The appeals therefore failed and the existing assessments remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the receipts from granting licences, leases and allied facilities at the aerodrome were exhausted by the assessments under Schedules A and B or were additionally liable to tax under Schedule D.

Analysis: The majority held that the decisive question was whether the receipts were referable to the exploitation of property rights or occupation of land, or whether they arose from a separate trading activity. On the facts, the material receipts were treated as flowing from the owners' proprietary rights in the land and from occupation already brought within the statutory assessments. The granting of licences or leases, even where the land was adapted for the user permitted, was treated as an exercise of property rights and not as a fresh source of taxable profit under Schedule D. The limited provision of a groundsman and first-aid appliances did not alter the essential character of the receipts, and any element attributable to the equipment was too slight to affect the overall conclusion. The authorities relied on by the Crown were distinguished on the basis that they involved substantial services, chattels, or trading operations beyond mere letting or licensing of land.

Conclusion: The receipts were exhausted by the Schedule A and Schedule B assessments and were not separately taxable under Schedule D.

Dissenting Opinion: Du Parcq L.J. held that the company's activities, viewed as a whole, amounted to a trade or an adventure in the nature of trade, and that the receipts were not merely profits of ownership or occupation. On that view, the proper charge was under Schedule D, and the Crown's contention that the assessment fell under Case I, rather than Case VI, should have succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the existing assessments were left undisturbed; the company's aerodrome receipts were treated as already covered by the property and occupation schedules rather than as a separate trading profit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where receipts arise solely from the exploitation of land as property or from occupation already taxed under the relevant schedules, and only incidental facilities are provided, they cannot be recharacterised as trading profits liable to an additional charge under Schedule D.

---