LAWS(CAL)-1968-11-26

WISDOM Vs. CHAMBERLAIN (INSPECTOR OF TAXES).

Decided On November 08, 1968
Wisdom Appellant
V/S
Chamberlain (Inspector Of Taxes). Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal for a decision of Goff J. on a case stated by the general commissioners of Income Tax. The judges decision was in favour of the taxpayer. He held that the profit in question was not assessable to Income Tax. It is a straight forward kind of case, in my view and no great researches into the taxing Acts are required. The case merely is : Whether tax under Schedule D is exigible under case I of section 123 - tax in respect of any trade arrived on in the United Kingdom..... The only gloss upon that is that, in the definition section (hundreds of sections away -section 526) trade includes every trade, manufacture, adventure or concern in the nature of trade. So that it need not be a trade if it is an adventure in the nature of trade, which enlarges the words of the section.

(2.) THE case concerns the affairs of an factor of the name of Norman Wisdom, a man making a very large professional income. Having some savings, which no doubt were not of much significance to him at the time, he did not want them but they were a nest -egg for his future -because after all a comedians life does not go on for ever and he needs something for his declining years - he, like many of his kind, was not much concerned with the financial aspects of his life, which he entrusted to a chartered Accountant, who was accustomed, I suppose, to dealing with that sort of thing : at any rate he carried on his business in the Charging Cross Road. He was the man who regulated the taxpayers affairs : his name was Halpern.

(3.) THE price of silver did not later very much in the next six months or so an eventually in April, 1962, the second transaction (so to call it) was made, which was done in this way : that the first transaction was undone, at a loss to Mr. Wisdom of some pounds 3,000, and the whole pounds 200,000 worth was then purchased on somewhat different terms. The exact terms I need not trouble with, but a years interest was to be paid in advance and was not to be repayable, and there was an option on the part of Mr. Wisdom to sell back at an enhanced price and a counter -option to the broker hedging him against a loss so that he could call on Mr. Wisdom to exercise his option or to relinquish it.