Dunmore v McGowan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE STAMP,LORD JUSTICE ORR,LORD JUSTICE EVELEIGH |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 1978 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1978] EWCA Civ J0208-1 |
| Docket Number | 1975 No. 40 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 08 February 1978 |
[1978] EWCA Civ J0208-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from an Order of Mr. Justice Brightman of 25th June 1976.
Lord Justice Stamp
Lord Justice Orr
and
Lord Justice Eveleigh
MR. MARCUS JONES (instructed by Mr. W.S. Dunmore, 75 Park Lane, Croydon, Surrey) appeared on behalf of the appellant.
MR. C.H. McCALL (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue, Somerset House, Strand) appeared on behalf of the respondent.
This is an appeal by the taxpayer, Mr. William Sidney Dunmore, against an order of Mr. Justice Brightman made on 25th June 1976 when an appeal by the taxpayer by way of case stated from the General Commissioners for the Croydon District was dismissed, the learned judge upholding the decision of the General Commissioners that tax was payable on some interest payments referred to in the case stated.
The facts of the case and the judgment of the learned judge in the court below are fully stated in the report of the case in the Tax Cases Leaflet "Appeals to the High Court 1966" published by the Stationery Office, No. 2608, and it is unnecessary for me to set out the facts or refer at length to the judgment it is there for all to read.
The point at issue clearly appears from Mr. Justice Brightman's judgment. It is a judgment with which I fully agree and I would be content to accept it as my own. I will, however, add a few remarks in deference to the submissions made by Mr. Marcus Jones in this court.
First of all, may I say this, that it appears to me that the doctrine that "receivability without receipt is nothing" is a doctrine which can be pressed too far. Much play was made in this courts as in the court below, of the case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Whitworth Park Coal Co Ltd. reported in 38 Tax Cases, page 531, where the facts were wholly different. However, there is a passage upon which particular reliance was placed, a passage in the speech of Lord Simonds at page 563 of the report, and what he said was this:
"Traders pay tax on the balance of profits or gains and bring money owed to them into account in striking that balance, but ordinary individuals are not assessable and do not pay tax until they -"
and I have under lined this next word:
" get the money because until then it is not part of their income".
Lord Simonds goes on to say:
"There may well be difficult borderline cases which do not clearly fall into either of these classes".
Of course, to some extent that remark, "individuals don't pay tax until they get the money" begs the question: for what is meant by the word "get"? Read in isolation it does not takeone very much further because one doesn't know without reading the whole of the Whitworth case what precisely is meant by "get", and when one finds the facts of that case are wholly different from the facts of this case I do not obtain very much assistance in solving the problem whether in the instant case the interest here in question was in truth received.
However, as the judge pointed out in the instant case every penny of the interest in question inured immediately to the benefit of the taxpayer and to the full extent of the interest. The judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Macpherson v Bond
...to the appellant's financial position whether interest was credited to the account or not. (e) The decision in Dunmore v. McGowan TAX(1978) 52 T.C. 307 was distinguishable. (f) The assessments should be reduced by excluding the income in question. 8. It was contended by the respondent that:......
-
Peracha v Miley (Inspector of Taxes)
...of Inland Revenue) for the Crown. The following cases were referred to in the judgment of Dillon LJ: Dunmore v McGowan (HMIT) TAX(1978) 52 TC 307 Furniss (HMIT) v Dawson & Ors TAXTAX(1984) 55 TC 324; [1984] BTC 71 Macpherson v Bond (HMIT) TAXTAX(1985) 58 TC 579; [1985] BTC 538 Income tax - ......
-
Girvan (Inspector of Taxes) v Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd
...for Orange. The following cases were referred to in the judgment: Dewar v IR CommrsTAX (1935) 19 TC 561 Dunmore v McGowan (HMIT)TAX (1978) 52 TC 307 IR Commrs v Duke of WestminsterELR [1936] AC 1 IR Commrs v McGuckian TAXWLR[1997] BTC 346; [1997] 1 WLR 991 Jauncey, ReELR [1926] Ch 471M Leig......
-
Dunmore v McGowan (HM Inspector of Taxes)
...W.S. Dunmore; Solicitor of Inland Revenue.] 1 Reported (Ch D) [1976] 1 WLR 1086; [1976] 3 All ER 307; [1976] STC 433; 120 SJ 606; (CA) [1978] 1 WLR 617; [1978] 2 All ER 85; [1978] STC 217; 122 SJ 1 [1943] KB 717. 1 [1961] AC 31. 2 38 TC 531, at p 573. 1 [1961] AC 31. 2 Page 315 ante. 1 38 T......