The court considered the question of what was meant by the phrase ‘expenses of management’
Held: The phrase (s75) could be seen ‘as apt to cover the expenses which would normally be deductible in respect of its life assurance business if an assurance company carrying on life assurance business was assessed as a trade.’ Section 33(1) ‘makes it clear that some only of the expenses which would be deductible under Case I and the relevant rules are deductible under this special method.’ Lord Reid: ‘I do not think that it is possible to define precisely what is meant by ‘expenses of management’. It has not been argued that these words have any technical or special meaning in this context. They are ordinary words of the English language, and, like most such words, their application in a particular case can only be determined on a broad view of all relevant matters . . . looking to the purpose and content of the section it appears to me that the phrase has a fairly wide meaning so that, for example, expenses of investigation and consideration whether to pay out money either in settlement of a claim or in acquisition of an investment must be held to be expenses of management . . . It seems to me more reasonable to ask, with regard to a payment, whether it should be regarded as part of the cost of acquisition, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, something severable from the cost of acquisition which can properly be regarded as an expense of management.’
Judges:
Lord Somervell, Lord Reid
Citations:
[1958] AC 184, [1957] UKHL TC – 37 – 330
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Sun Life Assurance Society v Davidson CA 1956
The phrase ‘general management’ extended further than ‘management’ and included what was done at the lower levels of a company’s executive structure.
Romer LJ said: ‘The ratio decidendi of Golder’s Case (Capital and National Trust Ltd. v. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Camas Plc v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 7-Jul-2003
An investment company sought to set against its liability to corporation tax, the various costs of taking over another company. They argued that as an investment company these were not costs of the purchase and could be set against tax.
Held: . .
Cited – Hoechst Finance Limited v Gumbrell CA 1983
The issue was whether the appellant company, a member of an international group of trading companies, could recover as expenses of management a commission of 0.25% per annum it had to pay to its parent as the price of obtaining a guarantee for the . .
Cited – Atkinson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Camas Plc CA 6-May-2004
An investment company made an abortive attempt to take over another. It sought to set off against its Corporation Tax, the costs of the professional advice incurred.
Held: The expenses were deductible. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Corporation Tax
Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.184471