Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Pearlberg
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DENNING,LORD JUSTICE MORRIS |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 1953 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1953] EWCA Civ J0119-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 19 January 1953 |
[1953] EWCA Civ J0119-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Denning
and
Lord Justice Morris
MR CYRIL KING, Q.C., and MR DESMOND MILLER (instructed by Messrs Warren & Warren) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Defendant),
SIR REGINALD HILLS (instructed by The Solicitor of Inland Revenue) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Plaintiffs).
In this case the Master and the Judge have both given judgment in favour of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue against the Defendant, Mr Henry Hyman Pearlberg, on a claim for income tax under Schedule A amounting to £438. 7. 0, Mr Pearlberg now appeals to this Court asking that he should have liberty to defend the claim.
The tax is claimed in respect of properties which fall intotwo groups. In the first group of properties Mr Pearlberg is charged with tax, not on the ground that he was the person assessed, but on a ground introduced by section 12 of the Finance Act, 1941, whereby an assessment is "valid as against all persons although not made on the person who should have been assessed". Proceedings have been instituted against him "as having been the landlord" at the material times. A notice has been served on him in accordance with paragraph 1 of the First Schedule of that Act, specifying the land and the amount of tax claimed against him. He has not given a Notice of Appeal from that notice. Under paragraph 5 of that Schedule it is said that where no appeal is brought "it shall be conclusively presumed that the person on whom the notice was served was the landlord of the land" (at the material time) "and that the amount of tax specified in the notice is due from him so far as it still remains unpaid". In the second group of properties Mr Pearlberg has himself been assessed and charged. He has not given a Notice of Appeal within the twelve months which is permitted by section 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Finance Act, 1942.
Mr Pearlberg has made two affidavits, and the upshot of them is this; in regard to the first group of properties he says that he never owned the properties; that he has never been in receipt of the rents or profits from them; that he is and has at all material times been an undischarged bankrupt; that he is not the landlord and, therefore, he ought not to be charged. In regard to the second group of properties he swears that he was at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Government of Malaysia v Sarawak Properties Sdn Bhd
-
The Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs (Petitioner/Respondent) v Andrew William Harris (Debtor/Appellant)
...be treated as indebted to HMRC in respect of the amount of a tax assessment which has not been successfully appealed: IRC v. Pearlberg [1953] 1 WLR 331 in which Denning LJ summarised the position as follows: "If there has been no appeal to the Commissioners the debts become absolute and con......
-
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Soul
...notwithstanding that there was a Case stated to the High Court pending. Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Pearlberg34 T.C. 57; [1953] 1 W.L.R. 331 followed. The case came before the Court of Appeal (Cairns, Stephenson and Bridge L. JJ.) on 25 June 1976, when judgment was given unanimously ......
-
Pawlowski (Collector of Taxes) v Dunnington
...(Trustees) v Sheffield City CouncilWLR[1998] 1 WLR 840 IR Commrs v Aken TAXWLR[1990] BTC 352; [1990] 1 WLR 1374 IR Commrs v Pearlberg WLR[1953] 1 WLR 331 IR Commrs v Soul TAX(1975) 51 TC 86 Mercury Communications Ltd v Director General of TelecommunicationsWLR[1996] 1 WLR 48 R v IR Commrs, ......
-
Preliminary Sections
...A.C. 355; 73 L.J.Ch. 739; 91 L.T. 602; 53 W.R. 113; 20 T.L.R. 633; 12 Mans. 141. 242 Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Pearlberg, (1953) 1 All E.R. 388; 97 Sol. Jo. 111; 34 Tax Cas. 57 3 In re Daws, (1838), 8 Ad. & El. 936; 112 E.R. 1095. 26 In re Sherry: London and County Banking Co., v. Ter......