Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 425 1970 SLD 425 (1970) 76 ITR 436
Chancery Division
January 12, February 23, 1967
LORD REID, LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST, LORD HODSON, LORD PEARCE AND LORD UPJOHN

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Inland Revenue Commissioners

v.

Brebner

Law:

Section:

- Section 28 - Finance Act, 1960 CASE REFERRED TO Crown Bedding Co. Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1946] 1 All. ER 452 (CA) JUDGMENT Lord Upjohn. -My Lords, this appeal from an interlocutor of the First Division of the Court of Session as the Court of Exchequer in Scotland dated February 22, 1966, is concerned with the short question whether the Special Commissioners for Income Tax were entitled to discharge a notice dated December 12, 1963, served upon the respondent by the appellants under sub-section (3) of section 28 of the Finance Act, 1960. This depends entirely upon the words of that section, so that I must set out its relevant parts : "Cancellation of tax advantages from certain transactions in securities. (1) Where-(a) in any such circumstances as are mentioned in the next following sub-section, and (b) in consequence of a transaction in securities or of the combined effect of two or more such transactions, a person is in a position to obtain, or has obtained, a tax advantage, then unless he shows that the transaction or transactions were carried out either for bona fide commercial reasons or in the ordinary course of making or managing investments, and that none of them had as their main object, or one of their main objects, to enable tax advantages to be obtained, this section shall apply to him in respect of that transaction or those transactions ..." 2. It is unnecessary to refer to the following sub-sections for they are irrelevant to the question before your Lordships. 3. It was admitted on behalf of the respondent that there had been a transaction or transactions in securities within the meaning of sub-section (1)(b) of section 28 and that, as a result, a tax advantage had been obtained. 4. The only question, therefore, as stated in paragraph V of the case stated by the Special Commissioners, was "whether section 28 did not apply to the transactions in question because they were carried out for bona fide commercial reasons and none of them had as their main object, or one of their main objects, to enable tax advantages to be obtained." The facts are set out in full in the case stated and I only recapitulate some of the leading features…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492