Farm Assist Case 2

Background:

The appellant was in receipt of a Farm Assist payment. Following a review, he was assessed with means of €168 per week derived from the annual profit (€12,700) from a holding. In line with this assessment, his payment was reduced from €226 to €96 per week. The appellant contested the severity of the reduction in his payment.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant’s wife accompanied him and the Social Welfare Inspector attended at the request of the Appeals Officer.

The Social Welfare Inspector outlined the details of the report she had made following an investigation of the appellant’s means. The appellant took issue with the number of cattle she had reported and argued that his son owned half of the cattle on the holding. He reported that his son, who worked for a construction company, had bought 6½ acres some years ago but had not applied for his own herd number. The appellant stated that they had about 90 cattle between them. The appellant indicated that his son had not declared the holding as additional income for tax purposes. While the Social Welfare Inspector did not argue the point as to the acreage which the appellant contended his son had bought, she insisted that the stock was held under one herd number and that all headage payments and subsidies were paid to the appellant. The Appeals Officer asked the appellant how his son could keep some 40 cattle, as he contended was the case, on 6½ acres. In reply, the appellant stated that his son rented pieces of land.

The appellant confirmed that the total current stock was as follows: 16 cows; 8 heifers in calf; 10 heifers to go into calf; 28 weanlings; 27 1½ year olds and 17 lambs. He stated that he had no other receipts to produce. He referred to loan repayments but the Social Welfare Inspector advised that an allowance had been made for bank interest paid in the assessment of means. In conclusion, the appellant reported that he had lost his medical card and said that this presented a problem for him as there were medicines he needed to use on a long-term basis.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer noted that the appellant’s stock had increased since the Social Welfare Inspector had completed her report. He noted also that the holding was farmed as a single unit, with one herd number and all grants and subsidies being paid to the appellant under that number. He considered that shares of the holding should be apportioned, noting that if the appellant’s son were to apply for a social welfare means-tested payment in his own right, a share of the holding would be assessed against him. The Appeals Officer did not accept that the appellant’s son had built up his stock to over 40 cattle from 6 ½ acres. He concluded that if the appellant’s son was renting land, there was no reason why he could not obtain a herd number of his own.

The Appeals Officer considered that it was difficult to exactly apportion the respective values of the holding as between the appellant and his son. He noted that no allowance had been made for land rented and concluded that the fairest method was to apply a ratio on the basis of land held, assuming that the appellant’s son held 6 ½ of the total 110 acres. On this basis, he reckoned the appellant’s share at €11,950 and his son’s share at €750. He concluded that it was appropriate to reduce the value of the holding assessed against appellant by €750. Accordingly, he estimated the appellant’s share of the holding at €11,950 (assessable at 70% for Farm Assist), so that his means were €8,365 or €161 per week.

Outcome:

Appeal partially allowed.