Attorney General v Black
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1865 |
| Court | Exchequer |
Income Tax - Liability of Local Coal Dues - Rate or Duty - 5 & 6 Vict., c. 35 - Schedules A. and D.
By 13 Geo. 3, c. 34, a power was given to Improvement Commissioners for Brighton to levy a duty of 6d. on every chauldron of coals landed on the beach or brought into the town, for the purpose of erecting and maintaining groyns, &c., against the sea. By subsequent Acts the duty was continued and increased, and by 6 Geo. 4, c. clxxix. it was, together with rates which the commissioners were empowered to levy, market tolls, &c., to form a common fund for the general purposes of the Act, which included paving, lighting, and watching, and the maintenance of groyns and other sea works:—
Held (affirming the judgment of the Court below), that the corporation (who had succeeded to the rights of the commissioners) were liable to pay income-tax in respect of the coal duty.
ERROR upon the judgment of the Court of Exchequer in favour of the Crown, on a case stated under 22 & 23 Vict. c. 21, s. 10, upon an information against the town clerk of the corporation of Brighton, to recover penalties for not including in the income-tax returns, required by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, certain duties levied by the corporation under local Acts upon all coal landed on the beach or brought within the limits of the town of Brighton.F1
Manisty, Q.C. (Freeman with him), for the defendant.
Sir R. P. Collier, A.G. (Hutton with him), for the Crown. The same arguments were urged which had been used in the court below.
BYLES, J. After listening attentively to the arguments which Mr. Manisty has addressed to us, I am of opinion that the judgment of the Court below must be affirmed. This impost is, at all events, of the nature of a toll within the 3rd rule of Sched. A. No. III. in s. 60. With respect to its incidence one thing at least is plain. It originally falls on the persons immediately engaged in the importation of the coal. What is its ultimate incidence it may be difficult to ascertain precisely; but at least it falls on strangers as well as on the inhabitants of the place. As to the benefit, there is no doubt who take it; it is taken solely by the tax-payers of Brighton, who have an entire discretion as to its application. On these grounds I entertain no doubt that the proceeds of the impost are liable to income-tax.
BLACKBURN, J. I am of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BCM Cayman LP and Others
...The limitations of the words “profits and gains” were pointed out by Blackburn J. long ago in the case of Attorney-General v Black (1871) LR 6 Ex 308, when he said that profits and gains in Case VI. must mean profits and gains ejusdem generis with the profits and gains specified in the prec......
-
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Forth Conservancy Board
...to the authorities, it is, I think, important to notice that in no case has the actual question arisen winch arises here. In the Attorney-General v. Black L.R. 6, Ex Cases page 78, and page 308 the point was whether monies accruing to the Improvement Commissioners of Brighton from a duty of......
-
Bluecrest v HMRC
...The limitations of the words “profits and gains” were pointed out by Blackburn J long ago in the case of Attorney General v Black (1871) LR 6 Ex 308, 309, when he said that profits and gains in Case VI must mean profits and gains ejusdem generis with the profits and gains specified in the f......
-
Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board v Ostime
...forward towards the expenses of the ensuing year." This principle had already been recognised before the first Glasgow case in Attorney-General v. Black, (1871) L.R. 6 Ex. 78 and 308, in which it was admitted by the Crown, at page 83, that a tax imposed by the community on themselves did n......