Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Combe
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Year | 1928 |
| Date | 1928 |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
No. 852.-COURT OF SESSION, SCOTLAND (FIRST DIVISION).-
Income Tax - Residence - Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 & 9 Geo. V, c. 40), General Rules applicable to Schedules A, B, C, D and E, Rule 3.
Prior to 24th April, 1926, the Respondent was resident and ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. On that date, he left the United Kingdom to enter the employment of a financial firm in New York. The employment was in the nature of an apprenticeship, with a view to his becoming a European representative of the firm.
During each of the years 1926-27, 1927-28 and 1928-29, he visited the United Kingdom on his employers' business. He was not a householder in the United Kingdom, nor had he a fixed place of abode there, but he resided at hotels during his visits.
On appeal, the General Commissioners decided that in each of the three years he was not resident in the United Kingdom.
Held, that there was evidence on which the Commissioners could come to their finding of fact that the Respondent was not resident in the United Kingdom.
At a meeting of the Commissioners for the General Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the County of Edinburgh, held on the 29th day of May, 1930, for the purpose of hearing appeals, Captain E.P. Combe (hereinafter called the Respondent), through his accountant, Mr. Alan G. Simson, C.A., appealed against the following assessments made on him under Schedule E of the Income Tax Act, 1918:-
Year 1926-27 as broker |
£472 |
10s. |
1927-28 |
£514 |
|
1928-29 |
£550 |
I. The following facts were admitted or proved:-
(2) Prior to 24th April, 1926, the Respondent was a person resident and ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. On the 24th April, 1926, he left the United Kingdom for the purpose of taking up employment as a broker with Messrs. Clark, Dodge & Co., of 57 Wall Street, New York, at a salary of 2500 dollars per annum. The employment was in the nature of an apprenticeship, during which he was to learn the business with a view to becoming a European representative of the firm. The employment began on 3rd May, 1926, and the assessments appealed against are in respect of the amount of the Respondent's salary. The £472 10s., on which he was assessed for 1926-27, was the equivalent in English currency of the proportion of the salary of 2500 dollars applicable to the period from 3rd May, 1926, to 5th April, 1927. The £514, on which he was assessed for 1927-28, was the equivalent in English currency of 2500 dollars. The £550, on which he was assessed for 1928-29, was an estimated amount.
(3) There was no written contract of service or fixed agreement between the Respondent and Messrs. Clark, Dodge & Co. He did not enter the United States under the Immigration Quota system and, therefore, could not remain in that country for a period of twelve consecutive months.
(4) Subsequently to his having taken up duty in the New York office of his employers, the Respondent made visits to the United Kingdom on his employers' business, returning to the New York office when the business which occasioned the visit had been transacted. During these visits he resided at hotels. He was not a householder in the United Kingdom and had no fixed place of abode there.
-
(5) The time spent by the Respondent in the United Kingdom in the years in question was as follows:-
1926-27.
From 6th April, 1926, to 24th April, 1926 4th March, 1927, to 5 th April, 1927
52 days.
1927-28.
From 6th April, 1927, to 14th May, 1927 22nd Nov., 1927, to 5th April, 1928
175 days.
1928-29.
From 6th April, 1928, to 28th April, 1928 10th Oct., 1928, to 12 th Oct., 1928 21st Oct., 1928, to 23 rd Jan., 1929 3rd Feb., 1929, to 5 th April, 1929
181 days.
(6) The Respondent returned to this country from the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of Davies and another) v HM Revenue and Customs
...Nicholls J, as he acknowledged at 14F, was adopting a phrase first used in this context in the decision of the Court of Session in Inland Revenue Comrs v Combe (1932) 17 TC 405. Until 1926 Captain Combe was resident and ordinarily resident in the UK. Then he went to New York to work as a b......
-
R (on the application of Davies and another) v HM Revenue and Customs
...residence” as a reference to “the ordinary course of a man's life” (494). 53 The notion of a distinct break appears in IRC v Combe [1932] 17 TC 405, in which a full time apprenticeship was served in New York. Lord Sands (411) attached importance to the distinct break in residence in the UK......
-
HM Revenue and Customs v Grace
...ceased to reside in the United Kingdom (or to have “left” the United Kingdom) unless there has been a definite break in his pattern of life: Re Combe (1932) 17 TC 405, 411.” This has the incidental advantage of identifying almost all the decided cases to which I need to refer. Those not alr......
-
HM Revenue and Customs v Grace
...ceased to reside in the United Kingdom (or to have “left” the United Kingdom) unless there has been a definite break in his pattern of life: Re Combe (1932) 17 TC 405, 411. 3 These principles were conveniently described in argument as the common law of residence and ordinary residence. But ......