Graham v Green (HM Inspector of Taxes)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 1925 |
| Date | 11 March 1925 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
NO. 514.-HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).-
Income Tax, Schedule D - Betting profits - Vocation - Profits or gains.
Apart from certain bank deposit interest, an individual's sole means of livelihood was, and had been for many years, betting on horses from his private residence with bookmakers at starting prices only.
He was assessed to Income Tax under Schedule D in respect of his betting transactions, and the General Commissioners, on appeal, confirmed the assessment.
Held, that his winnings from betting were not profits or gains assessable to Income Tax, Schedule D, either under Case I or Case II as from a trade or vocation, or under Case VI.
Stated under the Income Tax Act, 1918, Section 149, by the Commissioners for the General Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the Division of Burnham in the County of Buckingham for the opinion of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice.
At a meeting of the Commissioners for the General Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the Division of Burnham in the County of Buckingham held at the Town Hall, Amersham, on the 22nd day of October, 1923, for the purpose of hearing appeals,
Alexander Graham (senior) of Amersham hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant" appealed against an assessment of £300 to Income Tax made upon him under Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 and 9 Geo. V, c. 40), for the year ending 5th April, 1924, in respect of betting transactions.The following facts were proved or admitted:
1. That betting on horses from his own residence was the Appellant's only means of livelihood apart from a certain amount of interest on his Bank Deposit.
2. That for many years past this had been his sole means of livelihood.
3. The Appellant contended (inter alia):
That the fact that he did not attend race meetings and was not a professional bookmaker but that his betting took place from his own residence with bookmakers only and at starting prices only and consisted only of his own private betting exempted him from liability to taxation and in support of this view the Appellant drew the Commissioners' attention to the remarks of Mr. Justice Hawkins in the case ofPartridge v. Mallandaine.(1)
4. Mr. G.E. Green (Inspector of Taxes) contended (inter alia):-
That the Appellant was assessable under Schedule D, No. 1, of the Income Tax Act, 1918, in respect of:-
(a) "The annual profits or gains arising or accruing… "(ii)…from any trade, profession, employment "or vocation."
(b) "…and other annual profits or gains not charged "under Schedules A, B, C, or E, and not specially "exempted from tax."
That it had been admitted by the Appellant that for many years past betting on horses from his own residence was the only means of his livelihood apart from a certain amount of interest on his Bank Deposit.
That the liability was therefore properly assessable under Case II as being in respect of a vocation or alternatively under Case VI "in respect of any annual profits or gains not falling "under any of the foregoing Cases, and not charged by virtue "of any other Schedule."
5. We the Commissioners having heard and considered the appeal were of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs
... ... In Dale (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Johnson Brothers 32 TC 487 (a decision on s.8 of the Income ... He cites the well-known passage in the judgment of Rowlatt J in Graham" v Green (Inspector of Taxes) [1925] 2 KB 37 at 40, 9 TC 309 at 312\xE2\x80" ... ...
-
Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs
... ... referred to the well-known passage in the judgment of Rowlatt J in Graham v Green (Inspector of Taxes) [1925] 2 KB 37 at 40, 9 TC 309 at 312— ... ...
-
Wannell v Rothwell (Inspector of Taxes)
...Cooper (HMIT) v C & J Clark TAXTAX(1982) 54 TC 670; [1982] BTC 130 Edwards (HMIT) v Bairstow ELR[1956] AC 14 Graham (HMIT) v Green TAX(1925) 9 TC 309 Lewis Emanuel & Son Ltd v White (HMIT) TAX(1965) 42 TC 369 Ransom (HMIT) v Higgs WLR[1974] 1 WLR 1194 Salt v Chamberlain (HMIT) TAX(1979) 53 ......
-
Pickersgill v Motley; Ransom v Higgs; Lees and another v Grant; Dickinson v Downes; Kilmorie (Aldridge) Ltd v Dickinson
... ... Ransom (Inspector of Taxes) and Higgs Motley (Inspector of ... Cordy 28 T.C. 250 and Graham v. Green 9 T.C. 309 ... But the use of these cases is just an example of ... ...
-
Income Earned In Virtual Worlds: Taxation Issues
...is something other than a unit of play. Conversely, when the play ceases, taxation begins. Footnotes 1. 955 HMSO CMD 9474 Graham v Green [1925] 9 TC 309 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] 2 QB 484 http://www.cnnmoney.com, 9 March 2007 and elsewhere. http://www.theage.com.au, 31 Oc......