KIRKHAM Vs. WILLIAMS (INSPECTOR OF TAXES )

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question here is whether it was open to the general commissioners for the division of Macclesfiled to decide that the purchase, development and sale of a piece of land was an adventure in the nature of trade giving rise to a charge for income-tax under Case I of Schedule D. On an appeal by the taxpayer to the High Court by way of case stated, Vinelott J. held that it was. The taxpayer now brings a further appeal to this court. In both courts he has contended that the true and only reasonable conclusion from the facts found by the commissioners is that the transaction was not an adventure in the nature of trade.

(2.) The facts are fully stated or referred to in the judgment of Vinelott. J.,1989 STC 333, where the case stated is also set out in full. I will restate the facts so far as the arguments advanced on this appeal make is necessary to do so.

(3.) From June 1974 to November 1982 the taxpayer, Mr. William Brian Kirkham, worked on his own account as a general dealer and demolition contractor doing a limited amount of farming as well. His work included plant hire subcontract work, leveling, draining and ditching. During that period he and his family lived at Purdy House, 81, Rudyard Road, Biddulph Moor, Stoke-on-Trent. The facts on which the outcome of this appeal mainly depend are stated in paragraph 5(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the case stated. I will restate them in the commissioners own words, although I have rearranged the sentences in paragraph 5(iii) so that they conform with what both sides agree is their chronological sequence :