BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> J. & P. Hutchison v. Inland Revenue [1920] ScotLR 114 (27 October 1920)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1920/58SLR0114.html
Cite as: [1920] SLR 114, [1920] ScotLR 114

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 114

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

[Exchequer Cause.

Wednesday, October 27. 1920.

58 SLR 114

J. & P. Hutchison

v.

Inland Revenue.

Subject_1Revenue
Subject_2Excess Profits Duty
Subject_3Increase of Capital
Subject_4Pre-War Standard — Average Amount of Capital Employed during the pre-War Trade Years — Finance (No. 2) Act 1915 (5 and 6 Geo. V, cap. 89), sec. 41 (3).
Facts:

Where the capital employed in a business had been increased in an accounting period of six months, held that for the purpose of fixing the deduction of profits in the accounting period allowable in respect of the increase of capital, the “average amount of capital employed during the pre-war trade years” must be calculated neither upon the average of the actual capital figures shown in the four six-monthly balances applying to the two pre-war years of trade, nor upon the capital figures shown in the two six-monthly balances struck at the beginning of the two pre-war trade years, but by ascertaining in the case of each introduction of fresh capital into the business during the pre-war period its amount and its date.

Headnote:

The Finance (No. 2) Act 1915 (5 and 6 Geo. V, cap. 89) enacts—Section 38—“(1) There shall be charged, levied, and paid on the amount by which the profits arising from any trade or business to which this part of this Act applies, in any accounting period which ended after the fourth day of August Nineteen hundred and fourteen, and before the first day of July Nineteen hundred and fifteen, exceeded by more than two hundred pounds the pre-war standard of profits as defined for the purposes of this part of this Act, a duty (in this Act referred to as ‘excess profits duty’) of an amount equal to 50 per cent. of that excess. (2) For the purposes of this part of this Act the accounting period shall be taken to be the period for which the accounts of the trade or business have been made up.…” Section 40—“(2) The pre-war standard of profits for the purposes of this part of this Act shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be taken to be the amount of the profits arising from the trade or business on the average, of any two of the three last pre-war trade years, to be selected by the taxpayer (in this part of this Act referred to as the profits standard).… The provisions contained in the second part of the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the computation of the profits of a pre-war trade year, and the provisions contained in the third part of the Fourth Schedule shall have effect with respect to the ascertainment of capital for the purposes of this part of this Act. ‘The last pre-war trade year’ means the year ending at the end of the last accounting period before the fifth day of August Nineteen hundred and fourteen, and ‘the three last pre-war trade years’ means the three years ending at the three corresponding times.” Section 41—“(1) Where capital has been increased during the accounting period, a deduction shall be made from the profits of the accounting period at the statutory percentage per annum on the amount by which the capital has been increased, for the whole accounting period if the increased capital has been employed for the whole accounting period, and if the increased capital has been employed for part only of the accounting period, for that part of the accounting period. … (3) For the purposes of this section capital shall be taken to be increased or decreased, as the case may be, where the pre-war standard of profits is a profits standard, if the capital employed in the trade or business exceeds or is less than the average amount of capital employed during the pre-war trade years or year by reference to which the profits standard has been arrived at.…”

J. & P. Hutchison, shipowners, Glasgow, appellants, being dissatisfied with a determination of the Commissioners for the General Purposes of the Income Tax Acts at Glasgow, assessing the appellants to excess profits duty for the accounting period of six months ending 31st March 1915, appealed by way of Stated Case, in which S. W. Bensted, Surveyor of Taxes, Glasgow, was respondent.

The Case set forth—“The following facts were admitted or proved:—1. The appellants have been in use to balance their books upon the 31st day of March and the 30th day of September in each year. 2. The profits for the purposes of the excess profits, duty are determined on the profits standard, and parties are agreed as to these, the question at issue being whether in computing the deduction for increased capital to be made from the profits under section 41 (1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1915 the pre-war capital should be based, as the appellants contend, upon the average of capital at the beginning of each of the two pre-war years selected for the purpose of fixing the pre-war standard by the appellants, or as the Surveyor of Taxes contends, upon the average of the four half-years comprised in the two selected years. 3. If the appellants are right the deduction to be made will be struck upon the calculation following, numbered I, and if the Surveyor of Taxes is right it will be struck upon the calculation following, numbered II:—

Page: 115

I

Appellants' Calculations.

Capital

31/3/12

31/3/13

31/3/14

30/9/14

Written down value of ships

138,521

114,271

115,996

110,925

Other assets

45,620

68,700

81,465

63,484

Depreciation plant

184

349

427

184,141

183,155

197,810

174.836

Less investments

4,081

3,203

1,206

1,206

Less goodwill

19,027

19,027

19,027

19,027

Less bank

43,011

21,921

Less creditors

24,091

18,258

13,403

13,291

Less deposit receipts

17,501

27,662

11,155

Less depreciation plant allowed

107

205

255

90,210

80,017

61,503

44,934

Capital employed

93,931

103,138

136,307

129,902

Pre-war

93,931

98,534

98,534

103,138

Increase 7% half-year

37,773

31,368

2/197,069

1,322

1,098

Average

98,534

Surveyor of Taxes' Calculations.

Capital

31/3/12

30/9/12

31/3/13

30/9/13

31/3/14

30/9/14

Written down value of ships

141,913

129,967

116,930

107,122

116,085

110,404

Other assets

45,620

53,079

68,700

70,982

81,465

63,483

Depreciation plant

203

295

387

469

552

628

187,736

183,341

186,017

178,573

198,102

174,515

Less investments

4,081

4,081

3,203

1,703

1,206

1,206

Less goodwill ….

19,027

19,027

19,027

19,027

19,027

19,027

Less bank

43,011

34,442

21,921

10,461

Less creditors ….

24,091

18,153

18,258

12,028

13,403

13,291

Less deposit receipts

17,501

17,501

27,662

11,155

Less depreciation plant allowed

109

162

216

265

314

364

90,319

75,865

80,162

60,985

61,612

45,043

Capital employed

97,417

107,476

105,891

117,588

136,490

129,472

Pre-war

4/428,372

107,093

107,093

Average

107,093

Increase 7% Half-year

29,397

22,379

1,092

783

…. 4. The Commissioners were of opinion that the mode of computing the capital employed in the appellant's business adopted by the surveyor was correct and in accordance with the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1915, and they accordingly confirmed the assessment and dismissed the appeal.”

The following were referred to:—The Finance (No. 2) Act 1915 (5 and 6 Geo. V, cap. 89), sec. 38 (1) and (2), sec. 40 (2), sec. 41 (1) and (3), the Fourth Schedule, Part II, pars. 1, 2, and 4, and Part III, par. 1; the Finance Act 1916 (6 and 7 Geo. V, cap. 24), sec. 52; and the Finance Act 1917 (7 and 8 Geo. V, cap. 31), sec. 26 (5) ( b).

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord PresidentThis is an appeal against an assessment to excess profits duty. The appellants balance their books on 31st March and 30th September in each year. Accordingly—following section 38 (2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1915—the assessment deals with an accounting period of six months—viz., the period from 1st October 1914 to 31st March 1915. The prewar standard of profits—in the case of the appellants—is a profits standard, not a percentage standard; and the pre-war period for the ascertainment of the profits standard consists of two pre-war trade years.

It is provided by section 41 of the Act that if the capital employed in a business has been increased (within the meaning of that section) during the accounting period a deduction is to be made from the profits of that period at the statutory percentage on the amount of such increase. If the increased amount is one which has been employed in the business for the whole of the accounting period, then the deduction is to be allowed for the whole of the accounting period. But if it is one which has been employed for only part of that period, then it is to be allowed for only such part. This involves a comparison between (1) the capital employed in the business in the pre-war period, and (2) the capital employed in the business from time to time in the accounting period. By sub-section (3) the latter capital—as it may stand from time to time—is held to show an increase over the former capital whenever it exceeds “the average amount of capital employed during the pre-war trade years or year by reference to which the profits standard has been arrived at.”

It appears that the appellants did put additional capital into their business during the accounting period. In computing the deduction to which the employment of this additional capital entitles the appellants, the surveyor has based their pre-war

Page: 116

capital upon the average of the capital figures shown in the appellants' four six-monthly balances applying to the two prewar years of trade. The appellants maintain (1) that this is unwarranted by the Act, and (2) that their pre-war capital ought to be based on the average of the capital figures shown in the two six-monthly balances struck at the beginning of the two pre-war years. It may be on either view that the book figures have been the subject of adjustments, but the point is that these adjustments, like the original book figures themselves, relate to the dates of the four balances on the one hand, and to the dates of the two balances on the other, and not to the dates at which the additions to the appellants' capital were actually made.

Neither of these contentions appears to me to be well founded. Just as the capital employed in the business may vary from time to time during the accounting period (whatever its length), so also may it vary from time to time during the pre-war period (whatever its length). But for purposes of comparison and of ascertainment of the amount of the increase (if any) at one or more times (as the case may be) during the accounting period, some fixed datum, representing the amount of the capital employed in the pre-war period (whatever its length) is indispensable. The Act provides for this by defining the datum as the average amount employed during the pre-war period, whether that period consisted of two years or of only one. Such an average can only be struck by ascertaining, in the case of each introduction of fresh capital into the business during the pre-war period, its amount and its date. Once these facts are ascertained the calculation of the average is easy.

It may be noted that there is a similar capital average required in order to arrive at the pre-war standard of profits in cases in which there has not been even one full pre-war year of trade. In such cases the statutory percentage is applied to “the average amount of capital employed during the accounting period”—Fourth Schedule, Part II, paragraph 4. Such average would in like manner be struck by ascertaining the amounts actually employed from time to time, and striking an average by reference to the amounts and dates.

The surveyor is probably right in claiming that his method results in a nearer approximation to the statutory average than that of the appellants. I imagine that these averages are usually fixed by discussion and agreement with the taxpayer, rather than by exact ascertainment; and it is possible that the appellants have little to gain by insisting on the application to their case of the more painful method. In the result the determination of the Commissioners must be reversed, and the case remitted to them to adjust the assessment.

Lord Mackenzie, Lord Skerrington, and Lord Cullen concurred.

The Court reversed the determination of the Commissioners and remitted the case to them to adjust the assessment.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Appellants— Watson, K.C.— Normand. Agents— J. & J. Ross, W.S.

Counsel for the Respondent—The Solicitor-General ( Murray, K.C.)— R. C. Henderson. Agents— Stair A. Gillon, Solicitor of Inland Revenue.

1920


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1920/58SLR0114.html