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: 1970 To: 1979
This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.
Prince -v- Mapp (Inspector of Taxes) [1970] 1WLR 260; [1970] 46 TC 169
1970
Income Tax
1 Citers
Heaton -v- Bell; HL 1970 - [1970] AC 728
Pritchard (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Arundale; ChD 1971 - [1972] 3 All ER 1011; 47 TC 680
Horton -v- Young; CA 1972 - [1972] Ch 157
Harmel -v- Wright; ChD 1973 - (1973) 49 TC 149
Sargent -v- Eayrs; 1973 - [1973] 1 WLR 236
Mills -v- Commissioners of Inland Revenue; HL 1974 - (1974) 49 TC 367
Ransom (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Higgs, etc; HL 13-Nov-1974 - [1974] UKHL 5; [1974] 1 WLR 1594; [1974] STC 539; [1974] TR 281; [1974] 3 All ER 949
Inland Revenue Commissioners -v- Joiner; HL 1975 - [1975] 1 WLR 1701
Inland Revenue Commissioners -v- Bullock [1976] 1 WLR 1178
1976
CA
Buckley LJ
Income Tax, Family
The court had to establish a domicile of choice for a taxpayer by reference to his intentions: "I do not think that it is necessary to show that the intention to make a home in the new country is irrevocable or that the person whose intention is under consideration believes that for reasons of health or otherwise he will have no opportunity to change his mind. In my judgment, the true test is whether he intends to make his home in the new country until the end of his days unless and until something happens to make him change his mind."
1 Citers
Brumby (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Milner [1976] UKHL 7; [1976] 3 All ER 636; [1976] 1 WLR 1096
27 Oct 1976
HL
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Kilbrandon, Lord Edmund-Davies
Income Tax
A company had a profit-sharing scheme for its employees. When it decided to merge with a larger company, the trustees concluded that the scheme was no longer viable. They wound it up and distributed the funds among the employees. Held: The distributions to the employees were taxable as profits from employment.
Lord Kilbrandon rejecting an argument that the payment had nothing to do with employment. He said: "Certainly the money forming the payment became available in consequence of certain events and decisions connected with the structure of the company. But the sole reason for making the payment to the [taxpayer] was that he was an employee, and the payment arose from his employment. It arose from nothing else, as it would have done, if for example, it had been made to an employee for some compassionate reason."
[ Bailii ]
Willingale (Inspector of Taxes) -v- International Commercial Bank Ltd [1977] Ch 78
1977
CA
Stamp LJ, Sir John Pennycuik
Income Tax
Stamp LJ referred to: "the income tax rule that you may not be taxed on an anticipated profit."
Sir John Pennycuik said: "But it is likewise well established that the principles of commercial accountancy must yield not only to statutory provisions, in particular the prohibition of specified deductions, but also to any overriding principle of tax law."
1 Citers
Town Investments Ltd -v- Department of the Environment; HL 2-Mar-1977 - [1978] AC 359; [1977] UKHL 2; [1977] 34 P & CR 48; [1977] 2 WLR 450; [1977] 1 All ER 813
Sargent -v- Barnes [1978] 1 WLR 823; [1978] 2 All ER 737
1978
ChD
Oliver J
Income Tax
The dental surgeon taxpayer travelled to his dental surgery from home by car every day, a distance of about 11 miles. He also maintained a laboratory where a dental technician worked, about 1 mile from his home and almost directly on the route between his home and his surgery. He stopped off at the laboratory every morning and evening, to pick up or deliver dentures and to discuss matters with his technician. He claimed to deduct the cost of travel between his surgery and the laboratory. The laboratory was set up in an outbuilding of Mr Barnes' father's house. Held: Oliver J concluded that "it would in my judgment be a travesty to say that the taxpayer was in any relevant sense carrying on his practice as a dentist at [the laboratory]". He held that Mr Barnes' "base of operations where the practice was carried on" was at the surgery. Just because the journeys to the laboratory were "necessary" (as the General Commissioners had held), that did not mean the expense of them was incurred "solely or exclusively for the purposes of the practice". The journeys were in essence journeys between his home and his "base of operations" at his surgery and he was simply using the journey to and from his home to visit the laboratory. The essential character of the journey remained unchanged and for that reason it could not be regarded as satisfying the statutory test.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Willingale (Inspector of Taxes) -v- International Commercial Bank Ltd [1978] AC 834
1978
HL
Lord Salmon, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Keith
Income Tax
Discount on a commercial bill differs from interest because, unlike interest, it does not accrue from day to day. If the discount is income, it is assessable to the holder at maturity or when the bill is sold by the holder to a third party because only in that year can the profit be ascertained and earned. No income is earned before that year because the holder of the bill is entitled to either sell the bill at any time or keep it until maturity. The House recognised a clear distinction between a discount and interest. Lord Salmon said: "Although there may be some superficial similarity between (a) lending £10,000 for 5 years at a rate of interest of X per cent per annum on the terms that none of the interest amounting in all to £5,000 shall be payable until the principal becomes repayable and (b) buying a foreign bill of exchange with a face value equivalent to £15,000 for a price equivalent to £10,000, the two transactions are, in my view, essentially different from each other in character." and "It is well settled by the authorities cited by my noble and learned friends that a profit may not be taxed until it is realised. This does not mean until it has been received in cash but it does mean until it has been ascertained and earned."
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton (majority) said: "Stamp LJ reached his conclusion in favour of the Crown by accepting the submission [1977] Ch 77, 87a, "that there is no distinction in principle between earning interest and earning discount." With respect, I cannot agree with that view. In my opinion there is an essential difference between interest and discount, so much so that to speak of "earning" discount seems to me wrong. Interest accrues from day to day, or at other fixed intervals, but discount does not."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Vaughan-Neil -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners [1979] STC 644
1979
ChD
Oliver J
Income Tax
All that is required for a severance payment to be taxable is that there is a "connection" between the actual, prospective or past holding of the employment and the giving of the undertaking.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Inland Revenue Commissioners -v- Plummer; HL 1979 - [1979] 3 All ER 775; [1980] AC 896
