Bradfield v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
34 CLR 1(Judgment by: Rich J)
Bradfield
v Fedral Commissioner of Taxtion
Judges:
Knox CJ
Isaacs J
Gavan Duffy J
Rich JStarke J
Subject References:
Taxation and revenue
War-time profits tax
Exception
Bonus
Additional tax
Legislative References:
War-time Profits Tax Assessment Act 1917 (No 33) - the Act
Income Tax Assessment Act 1915 (No 34) - the Act
Judgment date: 22 October 1923
Melbourne
Judgment by:
Rich J
RICH J. I agree with the conclusion arrived at by my brother Higgins. The facts show that the appellant was a principal. The word "employments" in clause (c) of s. 8 (1) was not intended to and does not include the case of a principal in a business. The word "profession" is a vague and now-a-days a somewhat elastic term. There is no need to go afield, whether to dictionaries or to other countries, to ascertain its meaning. In Australia, at any rate, although we have travelled beyond the well-known three learned professions, a horse-trainer does not carry on a "profession." On the minor point I think that the word "retiring" qualifies the word "gratuity."