Corbett v Inland Revenue Commissioners
[1937] 4 All ER 700(Judgment by: MacKinnon LJJ)
Corbett
v Inland Revenue Commissioners
Judges:
Sir Wilfrid Greene MR
MR, Romer LJ
MacKinnon LJ
Subject References:
Income Tax
Sur-tax
Residuary life tenant
Sums credited to residuary life tenant during period of administration
Case References:
Allhusen v Whittell - (1867) LR 4 Eq 295; 23 Digest 464, 5358; 36 LJCh 929; 16 LT 695
Barnardo's Homes v Income Tax Special Comrs - [1921] 2 AC 1; 23 Digest 394, 4653; 90 LJKB 545; 125 LT 250; 7 Tax Cas 646
Marie Celeste Samaritan Society of London Hospital v Ireland Revenue Comrs - (1926) 43 TLR 23; Digest Supp; 11 Tax Cas 226
Wahl v Inland Revenue Comrs - (1933) 149 LT 203; Digest Supp; 17 Tax Cas 744
Sudeley (Lord) v A-G - [1897] AC 11; 23 Digest 463, 5354; 66 LJQB 21; 75 LT 398, affg SC; [1896] 1 QB 354
Re McEuen, McEuen v Phelps - [1913] 2 Ch 704; 23 Digest 464, 5359; 83 LJCh 66
sub nom Re McEwen, McEwen v Phelps - 109 LT 701
Re Wills, Wills v Hamilton - [1915] 1 Ch 769; 23 Digest 465, 5363; 84 LJCh 580; 113 LT 138
Judgment date: 13 December 1937
Judgment by:
MacKinnon LJJ
I agree. I think that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in this case are hoist with the two petards of their own previous making, the Barnardo case and the Marie Celeste case. The Marie Celeste case is absolutely indistinguishable from this case. In that case, there was £5,000 at stake, and in this case there is £6,000. Except for irrelevant considerations of consistency-and possibly for considerations of decency-there is, of course, nothing to prevent the appellants from arguing, as they did here, that the Marie Celeste case was wrongly decided by Rowlatt J, I think that it was not. I think that he decided the case rightly, in that he was only applying the principle that bound him, as it binds us, enunciated by the House of Lords in the Barnardo case.