Dilworth v Commissioner of Stamps ; Dilworth v Commissioner for Land and Income Tax
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1899 |
| Date | 1899 |
| Year | 1899 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Law of New Zealand - Charitable Trusts - Exemption from Duty -
Held, that a gift by will for the maintenance and education of boys who are orphans or the sons of parents in straitened circumstances, is “charitable” within the meaning of the
Held, also, that the institute, being an educational endowment in perpetuity vested in trustees without personal interest therein, the whole beneficial interest belonging exclusively and inalienably to the public, is a public institution within the meaning of s. 2:
Held, further, that the income derivable under the gift is exempt from taxation by s. 16, sub-s. 1, of the Land and Income Assessment Act, 1891, and by s. 3 of the amending Act of 1893 read therewith.
TWO appeals from two judgments of the Court of Appeal dated April 27, 1896, and October 29, 1896.
The judgment in the first appeal decided, on a case stated by the respondent at the request of the appellants, that a bequest to a charity called “The Dilworth Ulster Institute,” made by the will of James Dilworth, is not exempt from the payment of duty chargeable under the
The judgment in the second appeal decided, on a special case stated in an action brought by the respondent to recover land tax on the lands vested in the appellants as trustees for the said institute, that the respondent was entitled to recover notwithstanding the exemptions contained in s. 16 of the Land and Income Assessment Act, 1891.
The facts stated in the cases and the points submitted for the decision of the Court are set out in their Lordships' judgment.
Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., and Vaughan Hawkins, for the appellants in both appeals, contended that the devise in question was charitable both in the legal and also in the common and popular sense, within the meaning of s. 3 of the Charitable Gifts Duties Exemption Act, 1883. See Dolan v. MacdermotF1; Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v. PemselF2; Clark v. TaylorF3; Attorney-General v. Pearce.F4 The expression “charitable devise and bequest” in s. 3 is not limited on its true construction to devises and bequests to public institutions as mentioned or described in the interpretation clause (s. 2). Even if it were so limited, the institute in question in this case is an institution within the terms of that section. Further, it was contended that the lands devised vested in the appellants as trustees for the institute were so vested in them for public charitable purposes within the meaning of Land and Income Assessment Act, 1891, s. 16, sub-s. 1, and that there was nothing in any of the sub-paragraphs of that sub-section or in Amendment Act, 1892, s. 3, sub-s. 4, inconsistent with the construction contended for.
Haldane Q.C., and Rowden, for the respondent in both cases, contended that ss. 2 and 3 of the Act of 1883, cited on the other side, must be read together, and that according to their true construction the charitable devises and bequests referred to in s. 3 are restricted to those in favour of public institutions specified in s. 2. Accordingly, s. 3 has no wider effect than s. 2. Read together, the charitable bequests therein mentioned do not include all objects which have been held to be charitable within the provisions of 43 Eliz. c. 4, but are confined to public charities in the popular sense. Besides, the institute in question was established for the benefit of a sect or class, and is not a public school or benevolent asylum within s. 2, nor a public institution of any of the kinds specified therein. Regard must be had to the power of selection given to the trustees in respect of the recipients of the benefits of the devise, and to other restrictive conditions in the will. The charity was not necessarily for the benefit of the inhabitants of New Zealand, and accordingly was not in advancement of a public institution within the meaning of the local statute. As regards the second appeal there was this further consideration — that no building had yet been erected for the purpose of the charity on the lands in question which were not yet used or occupied within the meaning of s. 16, sub-s. 1, clause (g), of the Act of 1891. The exemptions in that Act only include lands actually occupied for a public purpose, and do not include lands in the nature of endowments.
Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., replied.
1898 Nov. 26. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD WATSON. The appellants in both these cases are the testamentary trustees and executors of the late James Dilworth, of Remuera, near Auckland, in the Colony of New Zealand, who died on December 23, 1894. Before the commencement of either of the suits in which these appeals are taken, the appellants had obtained probate and had carried out the whole directions of the testator, with the single exception of his instructions with regard to disposal of the residue of his estate, real and personal.
The testator, after making due provision for all persons whom he conceived to have a moral claim upon him, declared his intention of establishing an institution, to be called the Dilworth Ulster Institute, with the object of affording to boys of the classes thereinafter mentioned such maintenance, education, and training as would enable them to become good and useful members of society; and for that purpose he bequeathed to the appellants the whole of the residue of his real and personal estate which he had power to dispose of by will. At the time of the testator's death, the residue of his trust estate, both real and personal, was certified by the Commissioner of Stamps to be of the value of 100,655l. 2s. 3d.
The testator directed the appellants to reserve not less than twenty-five acres of his land at Remuera, known as Graham's Hill, for the purpose of erecting suitable buildings for the Dilworth Ulster Institute; and also, in the event of their resolving to establish an industrial branch of the institute at Waitakerei, to reserve sufficient land for that purpose. Instructions were given to the appellants that, in order to prevent the net income derivable from the residue falling below the sum of 5000l. per annum, they should accumulate and invest such sum of money as they might, think necessary before proceeding to erect any buildings for the purposes of the institute. And they were directed that, whenever the net income of the residue amounted to not less than 5000l. per annum, and the money in their hands amounted to not less than 10,000l. over and above any sums which they had invested for the purpose of securing the net income of 5000l., they should proceed to erect a substantial building upon the testator's lands at Auckland known as Graham's Hill.
The testator further directed that, as soon as the buildings at Auckland were completed, and all liabilities incurred in the erection thereof discharged, the appellants should select so many boys of sound bodily and mental health, being orphans or sons of persons of good character and of any race, as in the opinion of the appellants that portion of the income available for the purpose will be sufficient from time to time to...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 7-day Trial
-
NAMA v Commissioner for Environmental Information
...was referred to by the Commissioner, is the judgment of Lord Watson in the House of the Lords of the then United Kingdom in Dilworth & Ors v. Commissioner of Stamps [1899] A.C. 99 ('Dilworth') at pp. 105–106. It is invoked for a general, and absolute, proposition by the author of Murdoch's......
- Hepples v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
- Reynolds v Commissioner of Income Tax
- Yz Finance Company Pty Ltd v Cummings
-
David Hicks and Australian Proceeds of Crime Legislation: Can He Sell His Story?
...of the entire provision in which the word appears. The well-known statement of Lord Watson in Dilworth v Commissioner of Stamps (1899) AC 99, at pp 105, 106 should not be taken so literally as to reduce the inquiry in a case like the present to an inquiry into the meaning of the word 'inclu......
-
INCLUDE AS USED IN AN ENACTMENT
...the difference between them when used in a definition section was considered by the Privy Council in Gilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps (1899) A.C. 99 where at page 105 Lord Watson said: "The word "include" is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of ......
-
Preliminary Sections
...Dilibe v. Nwakozor (1986) 5 N.W.L.R. 315. ........................................................ Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps (1899) A.C. 99. Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps (1899).A.C. 99 at 105 .............................. 50 415 50 Din v. A.G. Fed. (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt.87) 147 ......