Snail Farmer Denies Tax Evasion Claims

Liverpool City Council is pursuing a tax dispute over a downtown office space that its owner claims is being used for a “legitimate snail‑farming operation.” The council argues the premises at 9 Dale Street are vacant and should be subject to full business rates, while the tenant, Snai1 Primary Products 2023 Ltd, says the presence of crates with snails qualifies the property for an agricultural exemption.

Council says the office is empty, tenant says it isn’t

Under local regulations, commercial property is taxed at higher rates than residential property, and owners must pay those rates even when the premises are vacant. Certain “agricultural uses” are exempt, a loophole that the tenant hopes to exploit. Liverpool officials contend the ground‑floor space is empty, noting that no business activity is evident. The tenant counters that fifteen crates, each holding at least two snails, occupy the area, thereby constituting an agricultural use.

Snai1 Primary Products 2023 Ltd is represented by a single director, Terence Ball, who also sits on the board of BoyceBrook, a consultancy that markets “solutions” for reducing empty‑property rates. The firm’s website describes its approach as introducing a “guaranteed minimum disturbance tenant” entitled to rates relief, but stops short of confirming the legality of the method.

Related: Sovereign Citizens Convicted of Plotting Kidnap of Coroner

Legal precedent casts doubt on the claim

British courts have previously examined similar arguments. In the 2021 case Isle Inv. Ltd. v. Leeds City Council, a landlord attempted to claim an exemption for an office space that housed crates of snails. The judgment was clear: the arrangement was deemed a “rates‑avoidance scheme” and not a genuine agricultural activity. A later High Court decision involving a comparable scheme in Leeds described the purported snail farms as “fiction,” noting the absence of any real business activity.

The Liverpool case mirrors those precedents. According to a recent investigative report, the crates on the lower ground floor contain as few as two snails each.

One reason the scheme may attract attention is the potential financial incentive. By classifying the space as agricultural, owners could avoid paying the higher business rates that apply to empty commercial premises. Yet the legal risk remains high. If authorities deem the arrangement a sham, the parties could face back‑dated rates, penalties, legal costs, and reputational damage.

Tax loopholes attract scrutiny.

Related: Local Museum Displays Bizarre Errors in Exhibit 174

From a broader perspective, this dispute highlights the tension between tax policy and creative compliance. While tax exemptions aim to support genuine agricultural activity, the criteria can be vague enough for businesses to stretch the definition. Cases like this test the limits of what qualifies as a real farm, and they prompt regulators to consider whether existing exemptions need tighter definitions to prevent abuse.

The investigation also raises animal‑welfare questions. Even with only two snails per crate, the conditions described—crates covered with straw and minimal water—are far from those of a professional snail farm. Whether the arrangement constitutes “snail abuse” is unclear, but the lack of a functional operation suggests the primary motive is fiscal rather than agricultural.

As the dispute proceeds, Liverpool City Council is likely to rely on the precedents set by earlier court decisions. If the council succeeds, the tenant will be required to pay the full business rates owed for the vacant office space, and the landlord may incur additional costs. The outcome could influence how other property owners approach similar tax‑relief claims across the UK.