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: 1985 To: 1989
This page lists 12 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.
Gaspet Ltd -v- Ellis (Inspector of Taxes); 1985 - [1985] 1 WLR 1214
Carver -v- Duncan; HL 1985 - [1985] 1 AC 1082
Hamblett -v- Godfrey (Inspector of Taxes) [1986] 2 All ER 513; (1986) 59 TC 694
1986
ChD
Income Tax
1 Citers
Reed -v- Clark [1986] Ch 1
1986
ChD
Nicholls J
Income Tax
The taxpayer defendant (C) had been both resident and ordinarily resident in the UK. He moved to Los Angeles in 1978 making his home and business there until May 1979, when, not having set foot in the UK in the interim, he returned to reside in the UK. The Commissioners ruled that he had not been resident nor ordinarily resident in the UK in 1978-79. The Revenue appealed. Held: The appeal failed. Nicholls J rejected arguments that (a) on the primary facts found by the commissioners Mr Clark had been so resident and ordinarily resident and (b) for the purposes of the provision (which was then in section 49 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970) he had left the UK for the purpose only of occasional residence abroad.
The court accepted the Revenue's submission that the provision brought into the tax net those who were not resident in the UK at all in the year of assessment, holding that "occasional residence" was the converse of "ordinary residence".
1 Citers
Hamblett -v- Godfrey (Inspector of Taxes); CA 2-Jan-1986 - [1987] 1 All ER 916; [1986] 59 TC 694
Gaspet Ltd -v- Ellis (Inspector of Taxes); CA 1987 - [1987] 1 WLR 769
Challenge Corporation Ltd -v- Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1987] AC 155
1987
PC
Income Tax, Commonwealth
(New Zealand)
1 Citers
Butler -v- Wildin (1988) 61 TC 666
1988
Vinelott J
Income Tax
Two brothers acquired a company and were the sole directors. 19 shares each were acquired by the children with their own money. Two later born children also acquired 19 shares therein with their own money from their respective fathers and others, and that the brothers had no shares. The company developed a site by building offices with the use of loans from a bank repayment of which was guaranteed by the brothers and let the offices. The company declared a dividend and the brothers, on behalf of their children, made repayment claims in relation to the tax credits attributable to those dividends. The claims were rejected on the grounds that there was a settlement in consequence of which the dividends were deemed to be the income of the brothers and not of their children. That was rejected by the Special Commissioners. Held: The time at which the existence or otherwise of the settlement was to be judged was when the company was acquired and the shares allotted: "At that date a potentially profitable venture had been identified and, as will be seen, from that date the brothers did everything that needed to be done to ensure that the opportunity was exploited by the company." and "It is in my judgment plain beyond question that each brother was a party to an arrangement within the definition of a settlement and that the dividends paid to the four older children were paid to them "by virtue or in consequence of" that arrangement. The brothers together arranged for shares in the company to be allotted to the four older children; and they arranged for the negotiations with British Rail to be opened, for the agreement with British Rail to be entered into and for the site to be developed by the company. The steps they took were thoughout directed to achieving the end that was in fact achieved, namely of ensuring that the company and so indirectly the four older children (to the extent of their respective shareholdings) took the benefit of the development of the site at no cost or risk to themselves." Referring to the case law: "In deciding whether an arrangement is within or without the classes of cases caught by s.437 the starting point must be to identify the arrangement. The question then is whether taken as a whole it did contain the requisite element of bounty. To that question again there can in the instant case be only one answer. The children contributed nothing except the trifling sums which I must assume were paid on the allotment of the shares. They were exposed to no risk."
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 437
1 Cites
1 Citers
Craven -v- White [1989] AC 398; Times, 22 July 1988
1988
HL
Lord Oliver
Income Tax
The inland revenue claimed that several transactions had been arranged for the predominant purpose of obtaining a tax advantage, and that accordingly they should be disregarded. Lord Oliver: "[T]he transactions which, in each appeal, the Inland Revenue seeks now to reconstruct into a single direct disposal from the taxpayer to an ultimate purchaser were not contemporaneous. Nor were they pre-ordained or composite in the sense that it could be predicated with any certainty at the date of the intermediate transfer what the ultimate destination of the property would be, what would be the terms of any ultimate transfer or even whether an ultimate transfer would take place at all."
Finance Act 1965 19
1 Cites
1 Citers
Jones (HM Inspector of Taxes) -v- O'Brien (1988) 60 TC 706
1988
Income Tax
1 Citers
MacKinlay (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Arthur Young McClelland Moores & Co; HL 1989 - [1989] STC 898; [1990] 2 AC 239
Bray -v- Best [1989] STC 159
1989
HL
Lord Oliver
Income Tax
There was not necessarily subsumed in the concession that a payment constituted an emolument from employment a conclusion that the payment must therefore be for a chargeable period within the aggregate period during which the employment subsisted. There was no basis for this conclusion in logic or authority. The period to which any given payment is to be attributed is a question to be determined as one of fact in each case, depending on all the circumstances, including its source and the intention of the payer.
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Sch E
1 Citers