Bradfield v Federal Commissioner of Taxation

34 CLR 1

---

(Judgment by: Isaacs J)

Bradfield
v Fedral Commissioner of Taxtion

Court:

Judges: Knox CJ

Isaacs JGavan Duffy J
Rich J
Starke 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:
Isaacs J

ISAACS J. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed. I wish to say a few words as to the meaning of the words under consideration.

Two words are relied on by Mr. Hayes with regard to liability at all. One is the word "employments." I think that word is used in contradistinction to principal in relation to a business. The other word is "profession." That is an expression which I agree is not capable of exact definition. The Act is one addressed to the general understanding of the community, and the meaning of the word as there found depends entirely on that understanding. The word "profession" is not one which is rigid or static in its signification; it is undoubtedly progressive with the general progress of the community, but at the present time and according to the present understanding of people the business of a horse-trainer is not included in the word "profession."

With regard to the PD250, Mr. Hayes admits that if the word "retiring" is to be applied to the word "gratuity" in sub-s. (f) of s. 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, he has no case on the subordinate point. I think it clearly is to be so applied.