Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  















Income Tax - From: 1930 To: 1959

This page lists 41 cases, and was prepared on 19 March 2015.

 
Leeming -v- Jones (Inspector of Taxes) [1930] 1 KB 279; [1930] 15 Tax Cas 333
1930

Rowlatt J
Income Tax

1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Fry (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Salisbury House Estate Ltd [1930] UKHL 1; [1930] AC 432; [1930] 15 TC 266
4 Apr 1930
HL

Income Tax

[ Bailii ]

 
 Archer Shee -v- Garland; HL 15-Dec-1930 - [1930] UKHL 2; [1931] AC 212

 
 Rutherford -v- Lord Advocate; 1931 - 1931 SLT 405
 
The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd -v- Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1932) 48 CLR 113; [1932] HCA 56
21 Nov 1932

Gavan Duffy CJ and Dixon J
Commonwealth, Income Tax
(High Court of Australia) The taxpayer newspaper sought to set off against its liability to income tax, sums which it had paid out in damages for defamation. Held: They were deductible. Such claims against a newspaper are a "regular and almost unavoidable incident of publishing it" and the damages are compensatory rather than punitive.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]

 
 Dewar -v- Commissioners for Inland Revenue; CA 1935 - [1935] 2 KB 351; 19 TC 561

 
 Carter -v- Sharon; 1936 - (1936) 20 TC 229

 
 Timpsons Executors -v- Yerbury; CA 1936 - (1936) 20 TC 155

 
 Inland Revenue Commissioners -v- British Salmson Aero Engines Ltd; CA 1938 - [1938] 2 KB 482

 
 Radio Pictures -v- Commissioners of Inland Revenue; ChD 1938 - [1938] 22 TC 106

 
 Copeman -v- Coleman; 1939 - (1939) 22 TC 594

 
 Commissioners of Inland Revenue -v- Payne; CA 1940 - (1940) 23 TC 610; [1940] EWCA 23_0610

 
 Beak -v- Robson; HL 1942 - (1942) 25 TC 33

 
 London County Freehold and Leasehold Properties Ltd -v- Sweet; 1942 - (1942) 24 TC 412

 
 Lomax -v- Peter Dixon & Son Ltd; CA 1942 - [1943] 2 All ER 255; [1943] KB 671; [1942] 25 TC 353
 
British American Tobacco Company Limited -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners [1943] AC 335
1943
HL

Income Tax

1 Citers


 
Wales (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Tilley [1943] UKHL 1; (1945) 25 TC 136
11 Feb 1943
HL
Lord Chancellor, Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Porter
Income Tax
The taxpayer was managing director of a company. The Revenue sought to tax him on two sums of £20,000 paid by to him by the company. The sums were paid in part as the price of compounding a pension, and in part in consideration of the reduction of the Appellant's annual salary. Held: A pension is not an emolument, and a lump sum paid to commute a pension is in the nature of a capital payment which is substituted for a series of recurrent and periodic sums which partake of the nature of income, but the same view should not be taken of an arrangement made between an employer and his servant under which, instead of the whole or part of a periodic salary, a single amount is paid and received in respect of the employment.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Absalom -v- Talbot [1944] 1 All ER 642
1944
HL

Income Tax

Income Tax Act 1918


 
 Norman -v- Golder (Inspector of Taxes); 1944 - [1944] 26 TC 293
 
Blackwell (HM Inspector of Taxes) -v- Mills (1945) 26 TC 468
1945


Income Tax

1 Citers



 
 Inland Revenue Commissioners -v- J Bibby & Sons Limited; HL 1945 - [1945] 1 All ER 667
 
Spofforth and Prince -v- Golder (Inspector of Taxes) (1945) TC 310
1945


Income Tax

1 Citers


 
Ayrshire Employers' Mutual Ins Co -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners [1946] UKHL 3; (1946) 79 Ll L Rep 307; 27 TC 331; 1946 SLT 235; 1946 SC (HL) 1
29 Mar 1946
HL

Scotland, Income Tax

[ Bailii ]

 
 National Anti-Vivisection League -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners; HL 2-Jul-1947 - [1948] AC 31; [1947] UKHL 4; [1947] 2 All ER 217

 
 Nugent-Head -v- Jacob; HL 1948 - [1948] AC 321

 
 Smith's Potato Estates Ltd -v- Bolland (Inspector of Taxes); HL 1948 - [1948] AC 508

 
 Capital and National Trust Limited -v- Golder; 1949 - (1949) 31 TC 266

 
 Messrs. Mohanlal Hargovind of Jubbulpore -v- The Commissioners of Income Tax, Central Provinces and Berar, Nagpur; PC 28-Jul-1949 - [1949] UKPC 38; [1949] 2 All ER 652; [1949] TR 289; [1949] AC 521
 
Bentleys, Stokes & Lowless -v- Beeson (HMIT) [1952] 33 TC 491
1952
CA
Romer LJ
Income Tax
The court considered whether the partners in a firm of solicitors could deduct from profits the expenses involved in entertaining clients to lunch. Held: They were deductible, notwithstanding the element of hospitality involved: " The relevant words of r 3 (a) of the Rules Applicable to Cases I and II—"wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the … profession"—appear straightforward enough. It is conceded that the first adverb—"wholly"—is in reference to the quantum of the money expended and has no relevance to the present case. The sole question is whether the expenditure in question was "exclusively" laid out for business purposes, that is: What was the motive or object in the mind of the two individuals responsible for the activities in question? It is well established that the question is one of fact: and again, therefore, the problem seems simple enough. The difficulty, however, arises, as we think, from the nature of the activity in question. Entertaining involves inevitably the characteristic of hospitality: giving to charity or subscribing to a staff pension fund involves inevitably the object of benefaction: an undertaking to guarantee to a limited amount a national exhibition involves inevitably supporting that exhibition and the purposes for which it has been organised. But the question in all such cases is: Was the entertaining, the charitable subscription, the guarantee, undertaken solely for the purposes of business, that is, solely with the object of promoting the business or its profit-earning capacity? It is, as we have said, a question of fact. And it is quite clear that the purpose must be the sole purpose. The paragraph says so in clear terms. If the activity be undertaken with the object both of promoting business and also with some other purpose, for example, with the object of indulging an independent wish of entertaining a friend or stranger or of supporting a charitable or benevolent object, then the paragraph is not satisfied though in the mind of the actor the business motive may predominate. For the statute so prescribes. Per contra, if, in truth, the sole object is business promotion, the expenditure is not disqualified because the nature of the activity necessarily involves some other result, or the attainment or furtherance of some other objective, since the latter result or objective is necessarily inherent in the act."
1 Citers



 
 Newsom -v- Robertson; ChD 30-Apr-1952 - (1952) 33 TC 452; [1951] 1 Ch 7
 
Lindsay -v- Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1953) 34 TC 289
1953


Income Tax
The court was asked whether a building was a farmhouse for the purpose of deciding whether reliefs were available for capital expenditure.
1 Citers



 
 Newsom -v- Robertson; CA 3-Jan-1953 - (1952) 33 TC 452; [1952] 1 Ch 7

 
 Marshall (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Thomas; HL 20-Apr-1953 - [1953] AC 543; [1953] UKHL 2; [1953] 1 All ER 1102

 
 Commissioners of Inland Revenue -v- Lactagol; 1954 - (1954) 35 TC 230

 
 Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners; CA 1954 - [1954] 1 Ch 672

 
 Heasman -v- Jordan; 1954 - [1954] Ch 744

 
 Inland Revenue -v- Broadway Cottages; CA 26-Jul-1954 - [1954] EWCA Civ 4; [1955] Ch 20; (1954) 33 ATC 305; [1954] 3 All ER 120; [1954] TR 295; [1954] 3 WLR 438

 
 Morgan -v- Tate & Lyle Ltd; HL 1955 - [1955] AC 21
 
Sharkey -v- Wernher [1955] 36 TC 275; [1956] AC 58
1955
HL

Income Tax
Where a trader takes stock from his business for private use or for use in another business which he owns, or where he transfers to his business stock which he owns in some other capacity than that of proprietor of that business, the transfer should be dealt with for taxation purposes as if it were a sale or purchase at market value. Thus, goods that a trader takes from his trading stock, for example, for the personal use and enjoyment of himself and members of his household, should be credited at market value.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Southern Railway of Peru Ltd -v- Owen; HL 21-Jun-1956 - [1957] AC 334; [1956] UKHL 4; 37 Tax Cas 602; [1956] 2 All ER 728

 
 Thomson -v- Moyse; HL 1958 - (1958) 39 TC 291
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.