Carver v Duncan (Inspector of Taxes); Bosanquet v Allet (Inspector of Taxes)
[1985] 1 AC 1082(Judgment by: Lord Roskill)
Carver
vDuncan (Inspector of Taxes)
Judges:
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Lord Diplock
Lord RoskillLord 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 Roskill
My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman and also the dissenting speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock. On the principal issues raised in these two appeals I find myself in respectful and complete agreement with the former and in equally respectful disagreement with the latter. I would, therefore, dismiss both appeals.
But had the question been relevant I would have wished, in agreement with my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock, to reserve the question whether, in the Paul family settlement case, the Crown's concession that the premiums on the gift protection policies were properly classifiable as expenses was correctly made. I agree with the order proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman as to costs.