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!
[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]
Page: 114↓
[Exchequer Cause.
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.
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—
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↓
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.
The Court reversed the determination of the Commissioners and remitted the case to them to adjust the assessment.
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.