1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140 
EMM
Page 91
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BY LES OLDRIDGE, A.1.R.T.E., A.M.I.M.1.
Registration and licensing(3)
VEHICLES which are licensed as "Farmers' Goods" pay a reduced rate of duty but to take advantage of this concession the vehicle concerned must come within the terms of the definition contained in the 1st Schedule to the 1962 Excise Act. It reads "Farmers' goods vehicle" means a goods vehicle registered in the name of a person engaged in agriculture and used on public roads solely by him for the conveyance of the produce of, or of articles required for the purpose of, the agricultural land which he occupies, and for no other purpose.
Although this seems a very clear definition the question as to what vehicles licensed in this way can be used for has often been in dispute in court. For example in Bruce v Odell (1939) 27 Traff Cas 135 it was decided that a supplier of fertilizers and agricultural goods is not engaged in the business of agriculture. The goods must be used for the business of agriculture of the person for whom they are
carried to or from the carrier's farm or to or from the farm of another person engaged in the business of agriculture in the same locality.
A market gardener taking vegetables to retail customers is using the vehicle in the business of agriculture (Manley v Dobson) 1942 2 All E.R. 578, but a wholesale greengrocer who buys crops growing in a field and uses his vehicle to collect them is not so doing. (Leach v Cooper) 1960. 48. L.G.R.
In Armitage v Mountain (1957), Crim L.R. 257 it was held that a farmer's goods vehicle carrying the furniture of a newly engaged farm labourer as an act of kindness and not for payment could not be taxed at the reduced rate. A similar decision was reached in W.R.D. MacMillan v William J. Butter (1964) Crim L.R. 320 where a farmer delivered implements he had sold to the purchaser.
Section 10 (7) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 in dealing with the farmer's goods vehicles provides that the owner may carry goods for another farmer providing the carrying is (a) occasional (b) incidental to his own use of the vehicle and the goods form only part of the load carried and (c) no payment is agreed or paid.