Beak v Robson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Lord Chancellor,Lord Atkin,Lord Thankerton,Lord Russell of Killowen,Lord Porter |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 1942 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1942] UKHL J1215-1 |
| Date | 15 December 1942 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1942] UKHL J1215-1
House of Lords
Lord Chancellor
Lord Atkin
Lord Thankerton
Lord Russell of Killowen
Lord Porter
After hearing Counsel for the Appellant, as well yesterday, as this day, upon the Petition and Appeal of Eric Herbert Beak (His Majesty's Inspector of Taxes), praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 5th of May 1942, except so far as the said Order relates to Costs, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, except so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of John Paxton Robson, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and Counsel appearing for the Respondent, but not being called upon; and due consideration being had of what was offered for the said Appellant:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 5th day of May 1942, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellant do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondent the Costs incurred by him in respect of the said Appeal, such costs to be taxed as between Solicitor and Client, pursuant to the terms on which leave to appeal to this House was granted by the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 5th day of May 1942, and the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
My Lords,
In this case the Crown contends that a payment of £7,000 to the Respondent by a private company called William Mathwin & Son (Newcastle), Limited, under a written agreement between them dated October 4th, 1937, was a "profit from the office" of Director and Manager of that Company within the meaning of Rule 1 applicable to Schedule E of the Income Tax Act, 1918. The Commissioners for the General Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the Division of Newcastle City decided against this contention and were required to state a Case for the opinion of the High Court. Mr. Justice Lawrence upheld the decision of the General Commissioners, and the Crown's appeal to the Court of Appeal (Lord Greene M.R., du Parcq L.J. and Mr. Justice Lewis) failed. Leave...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dolan (Inspector of Taxes) v AB Co Ltd
...Co Ltd v Bell 5 TC 60, 172 [1904] 2 KB 645, [1905] 1 KB 184, [1906] AC 18. Ammonia Soda Co v Chamberlain [1918] 1 Ch 266. Beak v Robson 25 TC 33, [1943] AC 352. Bomford v Osborne [1942] AC 14. Bradbury v United Glass Bottle Manufacturers Ltd 38 TC 369. CIR v Alexander von Glehn & Co [1920] ......
-
Hochstrasser (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Mayes
...with his office of director which might well not fall in the category of a profit from his office at all. The next case is Beak v. Robson, 25 T.C. 33. In that case the respondent director covenanted in consideration of the payment of £7,000 that he would not compete with the company, when h......
-
Parsons v B. N. M. Laboratories Ltd
...as capital sums they escape income tax. This perhaps regrettable state of the law dates from the decision of the House of Lords in Beak v. Robson (1943 Appeal Cases page 352), a decision which surprised the profession at the time. The sections proceed, no doubt in order to prevent what woul......
-
Hochstrasser (Inspector of Taxes) v Mayes
...L.J. in the case last cited and from the decisions cited by Jenkins, L.J. in his judgment in the present case (see especially Beak (Inspector of Taxes) v. Robson [1943] A.C. 352, per ILord Simon at p. 355, and Cowan v. Seymour (Surveyor of Taxes) per Younger, L.J. [1920] 1 K.B. 500 at p. ......