Spilsbury v Spofforth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 June 1937 |
| Date | 15 June 1937 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
NO. 1045-HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION)-
Income Tax - Deduction of tax - Alimony payable "free of "tax" - Claim by wife to repayment of tax in respect of the alimony.
Following a decree absolute for the dissolution of her marriage, the Respondent obtained an Order that her husband should pay to her during their joint lives maintenance "at and after the rate "of £120 per annum (free of tax) the said sum to be payable "monthly". The husband paid the instalments due from him and signed a certificate that he had deducted Income Tax from the gross equivalent of the amount paid after adding back Income Tax at the standard rate, and that the tax so deducted had been or would be paid over by him to the Revenue. (In fact the instalments paid had been treated as deductions in arriving at the husband's Income Tax liability.)
On a claim by the Respondent to repayment of the tax alleged to have been deducted from the payments made to her the Crown contended that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed that the Order in question was drawn up on the principles laid down in the case of Dayrell-Steyning v. Dayrell-Steyning, [1922] P.280; that the payments had not, therefore, borne tax in the hands of the Respondent; and that no repayment was due.
Held, that the Respondent was entitled to the repayment claimed.
Stated under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, by the Commissioners for the General Purposes of the Income Tax for the Division of Manchester for the opinion of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice.
1. At a meeting of the Commissioners for the General Purposes of the Income Tax for the Division of Manchester held on the 25th March, 1936, Mrs. Hilda Ann Spofforth of 56, Dunkerley Avenue, Failsworth, in the County of Lancaster (hereinafter called "the Respondent") appealed under Section 27 (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, against the disallowance of a claim for repayment of Income Tax amounting to £29 0s.8d. in respect of the period from 5th June, 1934, to 5th April, 1935.
2. The following facts were admitted or proved:-
(a) The Respondent on the 5th June, 1934, obtained a decree absolute for the dissolution of her marriage with William Arthur Spofforth and by an Order made in the divorce proceedings on the 12th November, 1934, it was ordered that the said William Arthur Spofforth should pay or cause to be paid to the Respondent during their joint lives and until further Order as from the date of the decree absolute "maintenance at and after the rate of "£120 per annum (free of tax) the said sum to be "payable monthly".
(b) The said William Arthur Spofforth paid the instalments due from him under the said Order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jefferson v Jefferson
...Daynell-Steyning's case has not, however, been followed, And the conetruction indeated thereby was rejected by Mr Justice Finiay in spilsbury V. spefferth reported in 1937 volume 4 all England Law Reports at page 467. There the respendent to the appeal Had obtained a decree absolute of divo......
-
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Ferguson
...1 Q.B. 215Hemsworth v. Hemsworth UNKELR[1946] 2 All E.R. 117; [1946] K.B. 431; In reShaw ELR[1918] P. 47Spilsbury v. Spofforth TAX(1937) 21 T.C. 247;South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue TAX(1926) 12 T.C. 905Renfrew Town Council v. Commissioners of In......
-
J v J
...of the Court was exercised in her favour. 15 16 whether the husband had paid the tax or not. This is shown by the cases of cases of Soilsbury v. Spofforth, 21 Tax Cases, page 247, and Stokes v. Bennett, 1953 1 Chancery, page 566. The learned Judge was, I think, not conscious of this and tho......
-
Ferguson v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
...1 Q.B. 215Hemsworth v. Hemsworth UNKELR[1946] 2 All E.R. 117; [1946] K.B. 431; In reShaw ELR[1918] P. 47Spilsbury v. Spofforth TAX(1937) 21 T.C. 247;South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue TAX(1926) 12 T.C. 905Renfrew Town Council v. Commissioners of In......