Connolly v Birch
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1939 |
| Date | 20 December 1939 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
- Trade profits - Builder leasing plots of land with the intention of erecting and selling houses - Houses erected and sold subject to ground rents created by the builder and payment of fines - Ground rents retained by builder - Basis of assessment to income tax -Method of computation - Whether trading profits should include such fines and the capitalised value of the amount by which the ground rents received by builder exceeded those paid by him -Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 9 Geo. 5, c. 40), Sch. A. and Sch. D - Finance Act, 1935 (No. 28 of 1935), s. 6 - Rules applicable to Cases I II of Schedule D - New rule of computation (rule18.)
The Finance Act, 1935, s. 6 provides: —"6.—(1) References in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of Clause 1 of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918, to annual profits or gains arising or accruing from any trade shall include profits or gains arising or accruing to any person from any building operation carried on by him or from the sale or the demise (otherwise than for a term not exceeding ten years without a fine) of any lands or hereditaments acquired by him either with the intention of selling or so demising them or with a view to their development by the erection of buildings or the reconstruction of buildings or any other building operation. (2) The following Rule shall be added to the Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918, that is to say:—18. In the computation of profits assessable under this Schedule and arising from the demise of any lands or hereditaments there shall be included in such profits (a) any fine, premium, or other money, by whatever name called, included in the consideration for such demise, and (b) the capitalised value of the rent reserved on such demise." A builder, C, took on lease 7 plots of ground for terms of years subject to ground rents. On each of these plots he built a house which he sold. Sales were effected by way of sub-demise at an increased rent and payment of a fine. On precisely similar facts the Supreme Court, in Birch v. DelaneyIR [1936] I. R. 517, decided that a builder was not liable to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swaine (Inspector of Taxes) v VE
...liable to be so assessed in respect of the fines. Legislation FA 1935 s 6(1). Cases referred to in judgment Birch v Connolly 2 ITC 201, [1939] IR 534. Birch v Delaney 2 ITC 127, [1936] IR Cayzer Irvine & Co Ltd v CIR 24 TC 491. Harvey v Caulcott 33 TC 159. Hughes v Utting and Co Ltd 23 TC 1......
-
Swaine v C
... ... A and D to a builder who, having built houses, disposes of them by subleases granted in consideration of fines and rents was considered in Birch v. Delaney (1) ... In that case the taxpayer was a builder who had acquired lands for the purpose of building on them. He disposed of some of the ... Delaney (3) and the builder in Connolly v. Birch (4) ... This material particular is that the appellant did not acquire the land upon which he built his houses as or for the purpose of a ... ...
-
Pile v Minister for Industry and Commerce
...(6) [1921] W. N. 247. (7) 1 C. P. 148. (8) 98 L. T. 257. (9) 47 I. L. T. R. 228. (10) [1922] 1 K. B. 172. (11) [1936] I. R. 517. (12) [1939] I. R. 534. (13) [1922] 1 K. B. (1) [1930] A. C. 432. (2) 98 L. T. 257. (3) [1932] 1 Ch. 362. (4) [1922] 1 K. B. 172. (5) [1921] W. N. 247. ...
-
L. O hArgain v Beechpark Estates Ltd
...judgmentO’Mara v Hummingbird Ltd [1982] ILRM 421. Cases citedBirch v Delaney 2 ITC 127, [1936] IR 517 & 531. Connolly v Birch 2 ITC 201, [1939] IR 534. Swaine v C 1964 IR Hudson v Wrightson 26 TC 55. Harvey v Caulcoth 33 TC 159. Case statedCase Stated for the opinion of the High Court pursu......