Commissioner of Taxes v Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1964 |
| Date | 1964 |
| Year | 1964 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Revenue - Income tax - Capital or income expenditure - Company - Group of copper mining companies - Fall in price of copper - Voluntary cut in production - Payment by one company of group to another to cease production for one year - An operating cost of payor company - Allowable deduction for tax purposes -
By section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1954, of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland:
“(1) For the purpose of determining the taxable income of any person, there shall be deducted from the income of such person … (2) … (a) Expenditure … (not being expenditure … of a capital nature) wholly and exclusively incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of his trade or in the production of the income.”
Company N., the respondent, together with companies R. and B., formed a group carrying on the business of copper mining, each company being independent of the others, but with overlapping directorates and each with the same deputy chairman. There was a common sales department for handling the disposal of their output; the copper itself not being sold as the specific product of any one of the three mines. Following a steep fall in the price of copper in the world market the group, in common with other producers, decided voluntarily to cut their production, and did so early in 1958 by 10 per cent., which for the three companies meant a cut of 27,000 tons, and reducing the group's estimated aggregate production for the year of 270,000 tons to 243,000 tons. In effecting this cut it was agreed that company B. should cease production for one year, that the respondent company and company R. should undertake between them the whole group programme for the year reduced by the overall cut of 10 per cent., and should pay a sum to company B. to compensate it for the abandonment of its production for the year.
The appellant commissioner of taxes contended that the proportion of the compensation which the respondent company had paid to company B., £1,384,569, was expenditure of a capital nature — was the cost of acquiring a source of income and, therefore, a capital asset — and disallowed it as an admissible item in the computation of the taxable profit of the respondent company for the year ended March 31, 1959:—
Held, that the compensation paid was an allowable deduction in determining the respondent company's taxable income. The expenditure bought only the right to have B. out of production for 12 months and had no true analogy with expenditure for the purpose of acquiring a business or the benefit of a long-term or enduring contract. It bore a fair comparison with a monetary levy on the production of a given year. What the respondent company did was to charge its 1958–1959 production with the payment of this money in order to settle its share of the group's production programme in the way that suited it best. It was a cost incidental to the production and sale of the output of their mine; as such its true analogy was with an operating cost. It resembled an outlay of a business “in order to carry it on and to earn a profit out of this expense as an expense of carrying it on”: per Lord Sumner in John Smith & Son v. Moore[
APPEAL (No. 32 of 1962), by special leave, from a judgment of the Federal Supreme Court of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Clayden C.J., Briggs and Quenet F.JJ.) (November 7, 1961) allowing an appeal by the present respondent from a judgment of the High Court of Southern Rhodesia (Young J.) (May 9, 1961) whereby an appeal by the respondent against the disallowance of its objection to an income tax assessment made upon it for the year ending March 31, 1959, was dismissed.
The following facts are taken from the judgment of the judicial Committee: The respondent's business was that of copper mining. Together with two other companies, Rhokana Corporation Ltd. and Bancroft Mines Ltd., it formed what was known as the Anglo-American group of copper mines in Northern Rhodesia. Each of the three operated a separate mine and was independent of the others, but there were overlapping directorates, and one Acutt, the joint deputy-chairman of the Anglo-American Corporation of South Africa Ltd., was deputy-chairman of each company.
Anglo-American acted as secretary and technical adviser to the group. There was also a common sales department for handling the disposal of their output, which was marketed through the British Metal Corporation. It was, apparently, the practice that the corporation should sell the copper forward on the basis of production estimates supplied by each of the members of the group. The sales were not at prices fixed in advance: they were commitments to supply, but only at the market price current when the copper was actually made available. Each company was expected to meet the corporation's commitments to the extent of its production estimates, but the copper itself was not sold as the specific product of any one of the three mines.
In the year 1957 the price of copper on the world market was falling steeply. Supply was in excess of demand, and during the year a number of the large producers in different parts of the world imposed upon themselves voluntary cuts in production. There was no binding agreement between them to effect this, but the individual decisions must have become known to all those actively interested in the copper mining business.
Down to the close of 1957 the Anglo-American group had not adopted any policy of reducing output. For 1958 the planned production of the three mines was an aggregate figure of 270,000 tons, 140,000 for the respondent, 90,000 for Rhokana, and 40,000 for Bancroft. By the beginning of 1958 it was accepted by those responsible for these companies that the Anglo-American group could not continue to make no contribution in the way of a cut in production, and a figure of 10 per cent. was taken as the appropriate measure of the cut. That would reduce the estimated aggregate of 270,000 to 243,000 tons. The question was, if the group was to sacrifice 27,000 tons, how was the sacrifice to be distributed among the three members of the group?
Accordingly, a meeting between their representatives took place at Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia, in the month of January, 1958. Three alternative courses of action were reviewed in turn at that meeting. First, each mine could cut its programme by 10 per cent. But to Bancroft, which was the most recent to come into production and was, comparatively, a high-cost producer, such a cut was altogether unacceptable, owing to the adverse influence on its costs of production. A second alternative was that Bancroft should be left with an unreduced programme, Nchanga and Rhokana adding to their own cuts the 4,000 tons of reduction that would have been due from Bancroft. But again this proposal had to be rejected, as it was felt that it could not be defended from the point of view of the separate interests of those two companies. There then emerged, and was accepted, the idea that Bancroft should go out of production altogether for 12 months, beginning as early in 1958 as was practicable, and Nchanga and Rhokana should be left to undertake between them the whole...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Dolan v A.B. Company Ltd
...2 All E.R. 279. 60 [1926] A.C. 205. 61 [1935] A.C. 431. 62 (1964) 110 C.L.R. 387, 419. 63 [1926] A.C. 205. 64 [1927] 1 K.B. 719. 65 [1964] A.C. 948. 66 [1932] 1 K.B. 124. 67 [1926] A.C. 205. 68 [1946] 1 All E.R. 642. 69 [1949] A.C. 521. 70 (1958) 38 T.C. 216. 71 [1926] A.C. 205. 72 [1964] 1......
- B.P. Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
-
Wharf Properties Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
...the nature of the interest payment could be discovered. Viscount Radcliffe in Commr of Taxes v Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd [1964] AC 948 at p. 960 followed; Beauchamp (HMIT) v FW Woolworth plc TAX[1990] BTC 478 distinguished. In the present case, during the whole of the two years ......
-
BFH v Comptroller of Income Tax
...Commonwealth of Australia v Citylink Melbourne Ltd (2006) 228 CLR 1 (refd) Commissioner of Taxes v Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd [1964] AC 948 (folld) Comptroller of Income Tax v ACC [2010] 2 SLR 1189 (folld) Comptroller of Income Tax v IA [2006] 4 SLR (R) 161; [2006] 4 SLR 161 (fol......
-
RECONSIDERING THE INCOME TAX TREATMENT OF INVESTIGATION FEES.
...note 50 at 264-265. (66) Johns-Manville, supra note 11 at para 18, citing Commissioner of Taxes v Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd, [1964] AC 948, 43 ATC 20 (67) Johns-Manville, supra note 11 at paras 16, 20, 28; Rio Tinto TCC, supra note 4 at paras 74, 79. (68) Johns-Manville, supra n......