Daphne v Shaw (HM Inspector of Taxes)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1926 |
| Date | 09 November 1926 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
No. 589.-HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).-
Income Tax - Profession - Deduction - Wear and Tear and Obsolescence - Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 & 9 Geo. V, c. 40), Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D - Finance Act, 1925, Section 16.
The Appellant, a solicitor, claimed a deduction under Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D in respect of wear and tear and obsolescence of books forming part of his law library.
Held, that the books were not machinery or plant within the meaning of the said Rules.
Stated under the Statute 8 & 9 Geo. V, cap. 40, Sec. 149, by the Commissioners for the General Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the Division of Finsbury in the County of Middlesex 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 Acts for the Division of Finsbury in the County of Middlesex held at 21A Northampton Square in the said Division on the 13th day of January, 1926, for the
purpose of hearing appeals, Frank Daphne (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant") appealed against an assessment of £1,500 made upon him under Schedule D of the Income Tax Acts for the year ending the 5th day of April, 1926, in respect of the profits of his profession as a solicitor carried on by him at the Dower House, 10 Charterhouse Square, in the said Division.2. In support of his appeal the Appellant submitted accounts for the three years ending the 31st July, 1924; by these accounts his profits were shown to be
| For the year ending 31st July, | 1922 | … | … | £1,205 |
| do. | 1923 | … | … | 1455 |
| do. | 1924 | … | … | 1322 |
| 3)3,982 | ||||
| £1,327 |
From the said amount of £1,327 the Appellant claimed to deduct the sum of £8 as an allowance for (a) wear and tear during the year of part of his law library and (b) for obsolescence of certain books forming part of the same library.
3. It was contended by the Appellant:-
-
(2) That under Section 16 of the Act 15 & 16 Geo. V, cap. 36, which extended to professions, employments, vocations and offices the allowance granted to traders by the Act 8 & 9 Geo. V, cap. 40, Sch. D, Cases I & II, Rules 6 and 7, of deductions in respect of wear and tear of machinery and plant and in respect of expenses incurred in replacing obsolete machinery and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McVeigh v Arthur Sanderson & Sons Ltd
...Cox TAX7 T.C. 147; 1919 S.C. 162Atherton v. British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd. TAXELR10 T.C. 155; [1926] A.C. 205Daphne v. Shaw TAX(1926) 11 T.C. 256Margrett v. Lowestoft Water & Gas Co. TAX(1935) 19 T.C. 481Abbott v. Albion Greyhounds (Salford) Ltd. TAX(1945) 26 T.C. 390Commissioners o......
- Infra Quest Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri
-
Munby v Furlong
...Act 1971 and its statutory predecessors has been the subject of a number of decisions and most particularly the case of Daphne v. Shaw 11 Tax Cases, 256 where Mr. Justice Rowlatt, whose judgments are of the highest authority on this branch of the law, took a different view. 17 In that case ......
-
Munby v Furlong (HM Inspector of Taxes)
...Commissioners dismissed the Appellant's appeal and decided that the books were not plant (following the decision in Daphne v. Shaw (1926) 11 T.C. 256), with the reservation that they could not see why, if a barrister had to buy a new edition of a textbook in order to help him write his opin......