Bright-line rule

But at the same time, it would be kind of weird if you couldn't deduct the interest every year, but then you could deduct it when you came to sell.

And that's how it's worked previously under the Bright Line test, and it's just a bit messy.

So the thing is that this issue has been known, and anyone who has sold a property under the previous Labour government will understand this because they would have dealt with this issue.

So it's not sort of a niche issue or special issue.

Under the traditional rigid common law rule, absolutely not.

The Bright Line Rule dictates that an easement of pertinent serving Tract A cannot be extended to serve a newly purchased non-dominant tract, Tract B.

Regardless of whether the physical burden on the servient estate increases.

Regardless, even if it's zero extra traffic.

Extending it is a technical legal trespass.

But as detailed in the two-point way article in our sources, modern courts are beginning to agree with that economic critique.

They are rejecting the Bright Line Rule in favor of a flexible intent-based material harm approach.

How did the Connecticut Supreme Court handle this in the Abington Partnership v. Hoblin case?

makes it very easy to weaponize.

If there's no bright line, you can always find a legal expert who'll say a given strike was disproportionate, and the fact that another legal expert disagrees

doesn't make headlines.

There's a knock-on effect here that I think is actually the most damaging part of all this.

And interestingly, about six years ago, there was a sort of classification sort of system that came out.

It's called the FDA's Bright Line Rule, which basically means any medication that's made out of a short chain of amino acids, that's 40 amino acids or shorter, is a peptide drug.

So semaglutide, which people know as ozambicar week OV, that's a peptide drug.

Whereas if it's above 40 amino acids, now it's a protein drug or a biologic.

So the government, as I say, they reduced some of the... and benefits around rentals and offsets and those sort of things.

You had the Bright Line test, which we've talked about before.

That gets brought in by a national government, too, to try and do that.

So there's a real feeling among policymakers that, yeah, this is actually getting scary.