Carver v Duncan (Inspector of Taxes); Bosanquet v Allet (Inspector of Taxes)
[1985] 1 AC 1082(Judgment by: Lord Fraser of Tullybelton)
Carver
vDuncan (Inspector of Taxes)
Judges:
Lord Fraser of TullybeltonLord Diplock
Lord Roskill
Lord Brandon of Oak-Brook
Lord Templeman
Legislative References:
Finance Act 1973 - s 16; s 16(1); s 16(2); s 16(2)(d)
Finance Act 1970 - s 26
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 - s 428(1)(a); s 455(b)
Trustee Act 1925 - s 19
Finance Act 1971 - s 32
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 - s 428; s 455
Case References:
W T Ramsay Ltd v IRC - [1981] 1 All ER 865; [1982] AC 300
IRC v Burmah Oil Co Ltd - [1982] STC 30
Furniss (Inspector of Taxes) v Dawson - [1984] 1 All ER 530; [1984] AC 474
Mangin v IR Comr - [1971] 1 All ER 179; [1971] AC 739
Marx v Inland Revenue Comr - [1970] NZLR 182
Cape Brandy Syndicate v Inland Revenue Comrs - [1921] 1 KB 64
Canadian Eagle Oil Co Ltd v Regem - [1945] 2 All ER 499; [1946] AC 119
IRC v Berrill - [1982] 1 All ER 867; [1981] 1 WLR 1449
Stott v Milne - (1884) 25 Ch D 710
Macdonald v Irvine - (1878) 8 Ch D 101
Stott v Milne - (1885) 25 Ch D 710
Judgment date: 16 May 1985
Judgment by:
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman and I agree with it.
I wish to add only two comments. First, like my noble and learned friends Lord Diplock and Lord Roskill, I express no opinion whether the Crown's concession that the premiums on the gift protection policies in the Paul family settlement were properly classifiable as expenses was rightly made. Second, I do not wish to be taken as impliedly deciding that the expenses 'properly chargeable' (in the sense explained by Lord Templeman) to income under s 16(2) (d) of the Finance Act 1973 in a Scottish trust would fall to be regulated by English trust law, if there were a relevant difference between the laws of England and Scotland.
I would dismiss both appeals.