INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER vs BROWN — 1976 PTD 433

Citation: 1976 PTD 433

Court: Chancery Division

Year: 1970

Decision Date: 1970-10-01

Parties: INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER vs BROWN

Headnotes

Case cited as 1976 PTD 433

Judgment Text

Court Name: Chancery Division Judge(s): Megarry Title: INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER vs BROWN Case No.: (1971) 1 W. L. R. 11 Date of Judgment:1970-10-01 Reported As: 1976 PTD 433 Result: Appeal allowed JUDGMENT JUDGMENT ' This is an appeal by way of case stated from the tribunal appointed under the Finance Act, 1960, section 28. The case as stated is some 18 pages long, and I propose to refer only to those facts necessary to make intelligible my decision on the points of law before me, though of course I do not leave the other facts out of account. I am here concerned with a sum of 10,000 which the taxpayer received in cash for a sale in May 1960, to a company called General Auto-Work Ltd. (which I shall call "General"). What was sold was the taxpayer's shares in five other companies. The taxpayer also received some debentures, and his wife received 15,000 in cash, together wit some debentures, for her shares in the five companies : but these transactions are not in issue before me. In order to pay the two cash sums of 10,000, and 15,000, General borrowed 25,000 from a bank. The bank charged only two per cent. Interest on this loan, for the taxpayer, his wife and a company called Reproductive Engineering Ltd. (which I shall call "Reproductive") undertook to keep at least 25,000 on current account with the bank. ' The Inland Revenue Commissioners served a notice under section 28 in respect of the alleged tax advantage which the taxpayer obtained through receiving the 10,000…

Read the full judgment on Al Wakeelo — Pakistan's AI-powered legal research platform.