Humbles v Brooks
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 1962 |
| Date | 08 November 1962 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CHANCERY DIVISION)-
Income Tax, Schedule E - Deductions - Expenses - Income Tax Act, 1952 (15 & 16 Geo. VI & 1 Eliz. II, c.10), Ninth Schedule, Paragraph 7.
B was the headmaster at a primary school and in this capacity was required to teach various subjects including history. He attended a series of weekend lectures in history at a college for adult education for the purpose of improving his background knowledge. On appeal to the General Commissioners he contended that the fees paid for this course were an allowable deduction under Paragraph 7, Ninth Schedule, Income Tax Act, 1952, against the assessment under Schedule E made upon him for the year 1959-60. The Commissioners upheld this view and allowed the appeal.
Held, that no deduction under Paragraph 7 was due.
Stated under Section 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, by the Commissioners for the General Purposes of the Income Tax for the Stockport Division of the County of Chester for the opinion of the High Court of Justice.
1. At a meeting held on 14th December, 1960, T.D. Brooks (hereinafter called "the Respondent"), appealed against an assessment under Schedule E for the year 1959-60 in the sum of £1,289. The Respondent claimed an allowance of £9 from his total emoluments for the year 1959-60 in respect of fees paid for a course in history that he took at Burton Manor Residential College for Adult Education.
2. The following facts were admitted or proved:
(a) The Respondent is the headmaster at the Tintwistle Church of England School, and is and was at the relevant time employed on a salary basis. As a headmaster he is and was required to give lessons to the pupils in various subjects, including history.
(b) He attended a course in history at Burton Manor Residential College for Adult Education, covering visits in October and November, 1959, and January and March, 1960. Attendance was at weekends, and he did not have to absent himself from his duties during the usual school hours.
(c) The purpose for which he attended the course was to improve his background knowledge of a subject which he had studied to G.C.E. "O" level only. He found it much easier and more time-saving to glean useful information from lecturers at such courses than reading numerous textbooks himself.
(d) Nothing in the Respondent's contract of service as headmaster required him to attend such a course.
3. It was contended by the Respondent that the fees of £9 were expenses that were admissible deductions from his remuneration assessed upon him under Schedule E. He felt the course was essential to keep himself up to date and to provide him with material which he reproduced in the history lessons which he was required to give.
4. The Respondent only claimed the fees paid for the course and did not claim expenses for travelling to or attending at the course, and claimed that his attendance at the course fell within Rule 7 of the Ninth Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1952, in that the Respondent was necessarily obliged to incur and defray and expend out of his emoluments moneys wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of his duties.
5. H.M. Inspector of Taxes contended that the fees were not money expended wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of the Respondent's office or employment within Rule 7 of the Ninth Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1952, and were not therefore admissible as a deduction from the Respondent's emoluments as assessed under Schedule E. Reference was made to the following case:Blackwell v. Mills, 26 T.C. 468.
6. The Commissioners, having heard the evidence of the Respondent and having heard the Appellant, found on the evidence submitted that the moneys expended by the Respondent for the cost of the course were moneys wholly, exclusively and necessarily utilised by the Respondent in the performance of his duties and fell within the meaning of Rule 7 of the Ninth Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1952, and were accordingly allowable as an expense.
7. Whereupon, the Appellant having duly expressed dissatisfaction with the decision as being erroneous in point of law and having duly required the Commissioners to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitzpatrick v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (No.2)
...v Bairstow & Anor ELR[1956] AC 14 Fitzpatrick v IR Commrs and related appeals (No. 2) TAX[1992] BTC 204 Humbles (HMIT) v Brooks TAX(1962) 40 TC 500 Pook (HMIT) v Owen TAX(1969) 45 TC 571 Ricketts v Colquhoun (HMIT) TAX(1925) 10 TC 118 Simpson (HMIT) v Tate TAX(1925) 9 TC 314 Income tax - Sc......
-
Fitzpatrick v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (No.2)
...choice and benefit. Indeed one of the journalists gave evidence that he was a "compulsive" buyer of newspapers. 31 In Humbles v. Brooks (1962) 40 T.C. 500 the headmaster required to teach history was not allowed the expense of attending a series of weekend lectures on history. Ungoed-Thomas......
-
HM Revenue and Customs v Banerjee (No 2)
...subscription to the mess of which he was obliged to a member and would have been transferred or cashiered if he had failed to pay; to Humbles v. Brooks 40 TC 500 in which it was held that a headmaster required to teach history was disallowed the expense of attending a series of weekend hist......
-
Fitzpatrick v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (No.2)
... ... Mr McNeill refers to the judgments in Simpson (Inspector of Taxes) v. TateELR [1925] 2 K.B. 214 and Humbles (Inspector of Taxes) v. BrooksTAX (1962) 40 T.C. 500 for the distinction between expense incurred to enable a person to perform the duties of his ... The expenditure in this case is similar in kind to that which was considered in Humbles v. Brooks , where the headmaster of a school, who was required to teach history, attended a course in history at a college of adult education and claimed the ... ...