Jamieson v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue.

Members: Wild CJ
McCarthy P

Speight J

Tribunal:
Court of Appeal (New Zealand)

Decision date: Judgment handed down 29 March 1974.

---

Speight J.: I have come to the same conclusion as the other members of the Court.

Had this case been one where the payments were by way of a capital sum to purchase rights which had not yet crystallised, then I would favour Mr. Downey's attractive argument. But this was not the fact situation.

There was an express agreement between the Objector and the continuing partners that the payment was made because ``it was agreed that the Objector was entitled to a proportionate share of fees''. Although this was not the method previously used on annual division of income, it was a variation, to use Mr. Hopkins' words, ``agreed to by all parties as Mr. Jamieson's share of fees earned up to the date of dissolution''. There is no evidence to show, as was submitted, that this was done after dissolution - indeed, the tenor of Mr. Hopkins' letter is to the contrary. I do not think the passage of a few days after the formal date of dissolution to the moment of quantification has any significance - for doubtless after agreement had been reached it would take a little time for all files and accounts to be examined to assess the amount due. This was part of the process agreed on for the purpose of dissolution by way of variation of the previous profitsharing agreement.

I too, would dismiss the appeal.