Norman v Golder
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1942 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
No. 1306-HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION)-
COURT OF APPEAL-
Income Tax, Schedule D - Deduction - Professional shorthand writer - Expenses of illness - Validity of assessment and notice of assessment - Appeal against assessment - Onus of proof - Case Stated signed by one Commissioner - Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 & 9 Geo. V, c. 40), Sections 137 and 149; Schedule D, Cases I and II, Rule 3 (a) and (b).
The Appellant, a shorthand writer, appealed against an assessment to Income Tax (Schedule D) in respect of his professional earnings. He had suffered from a severe illness and had incurred expenses-doctor's bills, etc. He stated that his illness was the direct result of working in unfavourable conditions. He contended that the expenses should be deducted in computing the liability to tax in respect of his earnings as being expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred in connection with his professional work, and not domestic expenditure. Alternatively, he contended that the expenditure should be allowed as an allowance for wear and tear.
He also contended that the onus was on the Crown to prove that the assessment was correct and not upon himself to show that it was incorrect: that the assessment was bad (a) because the notice of assessment did not set out the statute under which the assessment was made not the person by whom it was made; (b) on the ground that the Finance Act for the year of assessment was, as he claimed, not competently passed; (c) on the ground that the assessment had been made, as he claimed, by an Inspector of Taxes and not by the appropriate Commissioners; (d) because the notice of assessment was incorrect in detail.
The Case for the High Court, stated at the Appellant's request, was signed by one only of the two Commissioners who heard his appeal, the other having died. The Appellant questioned the validity of the Case on this ground. It was held that if the Case were invalid no appeal to the Courts was competent and as the appeal had proceeded the Appellant could not argue that the Case was invalid. On the other points the decisions in the King's Bench Division and in the Court of Appeal were against the Appellant's contentions.
Stated under the Income Tax Act, 1918, Section 149, by the Commissioners for the Special Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the opinion of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice.
1. At a meeting of the Commissioners for the Special Purposes of the Income Tax Acts held on 5th January, 1943, C.H. Norman, professional shorthand writer of 84/86 Chancery Lane, W.C.2 (hereinafter called "the "Appellant"), appealed against an assessment made upon him under Schedule D for the purposes of Income Tax for the year 1942-43 in respect of his professional earnings in the sum of £627.
2. The first point raised by the Appellant was whether the onus was upon him to prove that the assessment was incorrect or upon the Crown to establish that the assessment was correct.
Income Tax notice of assessment dated 23rd September, 1942, sent to and received by the Appellant is, at his request, attached to this Case, marked exhibit "A" (1).
We, the Commissioners hearing this appeal, ruled that the onus of stating the grounds of the appeal was upon the Appellant and that we regarded the assessment as correct unless and until it was demonstrated to us by the Appellant to be incorrect.
3. The second point raised by the Appellant was that the assessment which purported to be made by the General Commissioners acting for the Holborn District of London had not, in fact, been made by those Commissioners but by the Inspector of Taxes.
The assessment book was produced by the Respondent, was shown to the Appellant and was inspected by us. We ruled that the assessment had been made in proper form by the said body of General Commissioners. A copy of the assessment is attached at the Appellant's request, marked exhibit "B"(1).
4. The Appellant stated that he had suffered from severe illness which was the direct result of working in unfavourable conditions and that he had incurred heavy doctor's bills, etc., which amounted to £60 19s. 6d.
The fact that the Appellant had been ill and had incurred expense for medical aid was not contested by the Respondent.
5. On this point the Appellant contended that the expenditure on his illness was laid out in order that he might continue his professional activities: that the said expenditure was not domestic but was wholly and exclusively incurred in connection with his professional work, and was therefore an admissible deduction from his earnings for the purposes of the assessment. Alternatively, he contended that the human machine was as much entitled to an allowance for wear and tear as was an inanimate machine and that this expenditure should be allowed as an allowance for wear and tear. A bundle of correspondence is attached to this Case at the Appellant's request, marked exhibit "C"(1).
6. On this point the Respondent contended that the cost of the Appellant's illness was not admissible as a deduction from the amount of the assessment by virtue of Rule 3 (a) and (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1918; that the cost was a private expense; that it was not wholly and exclusively incurred in connection with the Appellant's profession as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mallalieu v Drummond
...cannot say that the one purpose is merely incidental to the other. Reference is made to what Lord Greene M.R. said in Norman v. Golder (1944) 26 T.C. 293, at page 299. That was another case under Schedule D, but again, in my judgment, applicable to Schedule E cases, where the learned Master......
- Lower Perak Co-operative Housing Society Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri
- Cannon Industries Ltd v Edwards
-
Murgatroyd v Evans-Jackson
...the assessment should be determined at £4,775 less capital allowances £74. 7. The following cases were referred to:-Norman v.Golder (1944) 26 T.C. 293; Newsom v.Robertson(1) 33 T.C. 452; Bentleys, Stokes & Lowless v. Beeson (1952) 33 T.C. 491. 8. We, the Commissioners who heard the appeal, ......