Maxwell v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 20 July 1866 |
| Date | 20 July 1866 |
| Docket Number | No. 197 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Second Division) |
I.
Process—Case—Revenue—Stamp— 28 & 29 Vict. c. 96, sect. 22.—
Stamp-Duty—Appeal.—
Stamp-Duty—Marriage Contract—Personal Bond.—
MAXWELL applied to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for their opinion as to the stamp-duty chargeable upon his marriage-contract. The Commissioners assessed and charged the said stamp-duties, amounting to the sum of L.103, 16s., upon the said instrument. Whereupon the applicant paid the sum, but declared himself dissatisfied with the determination of the Commissioners as regarded the ad valorem bond duty of L.37, 10s., assessed in respect of a certain provision in favour of the children of the marriage, on the ground that no stamp-duty was payable thereon, and required the Commissioners to state and sign a case for the opinion of the Court of Exchequer.∗
When the cause was called, the Court were of opinion that the point in dispute and the case should be brought before them by an appeal against the determination of the Commissioners. A note of appeal was lodged by the applicant, praying their Lordships to find that the said marriage-contract was not liable to be assessed and charged with the said ad valorem bond duty of L.37, 10s.
The case set forth five provisions of the marriage-contract, and stated that the ‘Commissioners were of opinion that the provisions in the said instrument inferred the payment of the following leading duties, besides two progressive of 10s. each on the words:—
| 1st Provision—bond, &c., | L.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2d Provision— | 60 | 0 | 0 |
| 3d Provision— | 6 | 5 | 0 |
| 4th Provision—bond for definite and certain sum of L.30,000, | 37 | 10 | 0 |
| 5th Provision—(the wife) assigns to (the husband) her whole means and estate, estimated to amount to L. 11,000, 000 | L.103 | 15 | 0 |
The Commissioners have accordingly assessed and charged the said stamp-duties, amounting altogether to the sum of L.103, 15s., upon the said instrument.’
The case concluded thus:—‘The question for the opinion of the Court is, whether the said 4th recited provision contained in the said marriage-contract be a bond for a definite and certain sum of money; and whether the said marriage-contract is liable to be assessed and charged with the ad valorem stamp-duty in respect of it, as such bond, in terms of the Acts 13 and 14 Vict. c. 97, schedule; and 55 Geo. III. c. 184, schedule, part 1; and 17 and 18 Vict. c. 83, sect. 16.’
The 4th recited provision was in the following terms:—‘As also the said (the husband) binds and and obliges himself and his foresaids to pay to … as trustees for the child or children to be born of the said intended marriage (other than and excepting any child of the marriage succeeding or having right to the said lands and estate of …), and the lawful issue of any of them who shall predecease him, and to the assignees of the said trustees, the provisions following, in the several events after specified, viz., if there shall be only one such child, the sum of L.15,000 sterling, if two such children, the sum of L.20,000 sterling, and if three or more such children, the sum of L.30,000 sterling, … and that at the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas after the death of the said husband, with a fifth part more of penalty, and interest at the rate of five per cent during the not-payment, and in security of the personal obligations before written for payment of the said provisions, with interest and penalty as aforesaid, the said … hereby dispones.’∗
Argued for the appellant;—(1) This is not a personal bond within the meaning of the statute. The sum provided is of the nature of a succession.
The children will take as heirs, and not as creditors; and when the succession opens succession-duty will be payable. But (2) even if it be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
L M Tenancies 1 Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
...the act of parliament applying to them the ordinary rule of construction". 14 A similar process of reasoning can be seen in Maxwell v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1866) 4 M 1121 (CS). The relevant charging section imposed ad valorem duty on a personal bond "given as security for the pay......