Brown v Adamson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 April 1937 |
| Date | 15 April 1937 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
NO. 1038-HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION)-
Income Tax - Housekeeper allowance - Finance Act, 1920 (10 & 11 Geo. V, c. 18), Section 19; Finance Act, 1924 (14 & 15 Geo. V, c. 21), Section 22.
The Appellant, a widower who had no female relative of his own or of his deceased wife able and willing to keep his house, employed for that purpose a married woman. She lived with her husband (who was not liable to Income Tax) but she attended daily at the Appellant's house, to which she had free access, and she had entire responsibility for all domestic duties. She received about £60 a year, with full pay and subsistence allowance for 28 days' holiday each year.
Held, that the Appellant was not entitled to an allowance for a housekeeper.
Stated under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, by the Commissioners for the General Purposes of the Income Tax for the Division of Woolwich in the County of Kent for the opinion of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice.
1. At a meeting of the Commissioners for the General Purposes of the Income Tax for the Division of Woolwich held at 3, Thomas Street, Woolwich, on the 25th day of February, 1936, for the purpose of hearing appeals, Alexander R. Brown (hereinafter called "the Appellant") appealed against an assessment to Income Tax in the sum of £474 10s. 0d. for the year ending 5th April, 1936, made upon him under the Income Tax Acts.
2. The assessment was made upon the Appellant under Schedule E of the Income Tax Act, 1918, in respect of his remuneration. No objection was taken to the gross amount of the assessment, but the Appellant in his appeal claimed an allowance therefrom of the sum of £50 under Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1924, in respect of the services of a housekeeper.
3. The following facts were admitted or proved:-
The Appellant is a widower who has no female relative of his own or of his deceased wife able and willing to keep his house, and he has employed a female person for the purpose.
The employed female person is a married woman who does not reside with the Appellant, but with her husband. She attends daily at the home of the Appellant for the purpose of house-keeping, has been so engaged for over six years, has entire responsibility for all domestic duties, is trusted, has free access, food to choice and receives approximately £60 per annum with full pay and subsistence allowance for 28 days holiday each year.
The husband is not liable to Income Tax.
4. The Appellant in support of his claim quoted from Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1924, the clause which is there put in place of Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1920:-
If the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barentz (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Whiting
...as a housekeeper, must be resident. That concession, as I understand it, has been made having regard to the authority of Brown v. Adamson, 21 T.C. 186. But it is argued that in the case of a person having the charge and care of children, although such a person if a relative must be resident......
-
Barentz v Whiting
...merely employed as a housekeeper, must be resident. That concession, as I understand it, has been made having regard to the authority of Brown v. Adams on, reported in 41 Tax Cases, page 186. But it is argued that in the case of a person having the charge and care of children, although such......
-
Brown v Adamson (HM Inspector of Taxes)
...costs. The Solicitor-General.-If your Lordship pleases. [Solicitors:-Hughes, Narborough & Thomas; Solicitor of Inland Revenue.]1 Reported 53 T.L.R. 646. ...