Westminster Bank Ltd v Osler
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Buckmaster,. |
| Judgment Date | 15 November 1932 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1932] UKHL J1115-3 |
| Date | 15 November 1932 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1932] UKHL J1115-3
House of Lords
Lord Buckmaster.
Lord Blanesburgh.
Lord Warrington of Clyffe.
Lord Russell of Killowen.
Lord Wright.
After hearing Counsel, as well on Thursday the 3d, as on Friday the 4th, days of this instant November, upon the Petition and Appeal of Westminster Bank, Limited, whose registered office is situate at 41, Lothbury, in the City of London, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 18th of January 1932, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of R. W. Osler, one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 18th day of January 1932, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondent the Costs incurred by him in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
My Lords,
The Appellants are the Westminster Bank Ltd., who have occasion while carrying on their business to make, and from time to time to vary, large investments. It is not disputed that any profit made by them on the realisation of an investment is part of the profits of their trade for the purposes of income tax, the question on this appeal is whether in the circumstances I will state such profit has been made.
During the years 1917 and 1918 the Appellants obtained the following holdings of National War Bonds:—
| Amount. | Series. | Date of Issue. | Date when repayable. | Price at which repayable. |
| £4,000,000 | 1st | October, 1917 | October 1st, 1922 | £102 |
| £250,000 | 2nd | April, 1918 | April 1st, 1923 | £102 |
| £2,205,000 | 2nd | April, 1918 | April 1st, 1923 | £102 |
| £1,050,000 | 3rd | September, 1918 | September 1st, 1923 | £102 |
The prospectus that was issued inviting application for the bonds, contained a provision entitling the holders to convert the bonds into 5 per cent. War Loan 1929/47 at the rate of £100 of such Loan for £95 nominal of the value of the surrendered War Bonds.
On 21st April, 1922, the Treasury made an offer to the holders of all the above bonds entitling them to surrender their holdings in exchange for £134 3½ per cent. Conversion Loan for each £100 5 per cent. National War Bonds. In response to this offer, the Appellants surrendered their holdings of four million of the 1st series, and £2,205,000 of the 2nd series, and subsequently, in exercise of their rights under the terms of the original issue, exchanged their remaining holdings into the 5 per cent. War Loan.
If such transactions be accepted as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Varty v British South Africa Company
...was no element of exchange as there was in The Royal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Stephen 14 T.C. 22 and in Westminster Bank Limited v. Osler 17 T.C. 381. In his speech in the latter case Viscount Buckmaster (at page 402) said: "The exchange effected in the present case was, in fact, the exact equ......
-
Varty v British South Africa Company
...into his trading account at its realisable value at the time of exchange. The Crown rely on the decision of the House of Lords in Westminster Bank, v. Osier, 1933 Appeal Cases. 5 On the other hand the Company say that the option was not part of their stock-in-trade at all. The Company admit......
-
Gold Coast Selection Trust Ltd v Humphrey
...Copper Syndicate v. Harris, TAX5 T.C. 159Royal Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Stephen, TAX14 T.C. 22Westminster Bank, Ltd. v. Osler, TAX17 T.C. 381John Emery & Sons v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, TAX20 T.C. 213Russell v. Aberdeen Town and County Bank, TAX2 T.C. 321Whimster & Co. v. Commissione......
-
Nuclear Electric Plc v Bradley (Inspector of Taxes)
...Commr ELR[1940] AC 1055 Royal Insurance Co v Stephen TAX(1928) 14 TC 22 Westminster Bank Ltd v Osler (HMIT) ELRELR[1932] 1 KB 668 (CA), [1933] AC 139 (HL) Corporation tax - Loss relief - Trading losses - Trading liabilities arising in current year but payable in future years - Projected cos......