Keren Kayemeth le Jisroel Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
[1932] A.C. 650(Judgment by: Lord MacMillan)
Between: Keren Kayemeth le Jisroel Ltd - Appellant
And: Commissioners of Inland Revenue - Respondents
Judges:
Lord Tomlin
Lord Warrington of Clyffe
Lord Thankerton
Lord MacMillanLord Wright
Subject References:
REVENUE
INCOME TAX
Association for settling Jews in Palestine and Elsewhere
CHARITY
Legislative References:
Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 & 9 Geo. 5, c. 40) - s. 37
Judgment date: 10 May 1932
Judgment by:
Lord MacMillan
My Lords, the question in this appeal is really a very short one on ultimate analysis. It is whether the appellant company are a body of persons established for charitable purposes only. The memorandum of association of the company expresses the purpose of the company in the clearest possible way. The association is stated to have been established with the object of entering into certain transactions and carrying on certain activities, all for the purpose of settling Jews on lands in the prescribed region in Asia. The purpose being thus defined for us by the memorandum, the question is whether this purpose of settling Jews in a certain region of Asia is a charitable purpose.
My Lords, it has been suggested that, while the transactions which may be entered into and the operations which may be carried on are ordinary enough operations of land acquisition, settlement and development, nevertheless the motive which is behind all these transactions and operations is predominantly a religious motive. It may well be that those who propose to carry on these activities are in point of fact animated by religious motives, but I am afraid that the income tax code applies a more objective test: it looks at the nature of the transactions; it looks at the character of the activities; and it does not look behind these to what may be the motive which has prompted the formation of the company.
For these reasons, which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has already so fully expounded, I am quite unable to see that the purpose of settling Jews in this region can be described as a religious purpose, whatever may be the actuating motive, or as a charity having for its purpose the benefit of a certain section of the community, or as a charity for the relief of the poor. These were the three categories into one or other or all of which it was suggested that this charity, if it be a charity, might fall. In my opinion the appellants have failed to bring it within any one of these categories, and consequently have failed in what it was essential for them to make out - namely, that they are a body of persons established for charitable purposes only.