CORCORAN (Surveyor of Taxes) v JUDGE

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 19 June 1918
• Date: 19 June 1918
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)

NO. 386.-HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, IRELAND (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).-

(2) CORCORAN (Surveyor of Taxes)

and

JUDGE

Income Tax (Schedule B). - Annual Value. - Purchase Annuity payable under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts. - Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, Section 22 (2) (c).

Certain lands were purchased in 1875 under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, and charged with a purchase annuity payable to the Commissioners of Public Works, Dublin. The term for this annuity had since been extended and the amount reduced. The amount of the Poor Law Valuation of the lands, at the time when the assessment to Income Tax, Schedule B, was made, was less than the original annuity, but greater than the annuity then payable.

Held, that the expression "purchase annuity," used in Section 22 (2) (c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, means the annuity payable at the time when the assessment to Income Tax under Schedule B falls to be made and that the annual value of the lands in question for the purposes of Schedule B must therefore be taken to be the amount of that annuity.

CASE STATED.

UNDER THE TAXES MANAGEMENT ACT, 1880, SECTION 59, BY THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE SPECIAL PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX ACTS FOR THE OPINION OF THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND.

I. At a meeting of the Commissioners for the special purposes of the Income Tax Acts held on the 7th December, 1917, at Claremorris for the purpose of hearing appeals, Mr. J.W. Judge, hereinafter called the Respondent, appealed against an assessment to Income Tax in the sum of £39 5s. 0d. for the year ending 5th April, 1918, made upon him under Schedule B of the Income Tax Acts in respect of lands occupied by him at Claremorris.

II. The following are the facts of the case.

1. (a) The lands in respect of which the assessment was made were purchased by the tenant occupying them in 1875, under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870 (33 and 34 Vict. c. 46).

2. (b) One-third of the purchase money was provided by the purchaser, the other two-thirds being advanced by the Commissioners of Public Works, Dublin (hereinafter referred to as "The Board of Works") under the provisions of Sections 44 and 45 of the said Act. The deed of purchase is annexed hereto and forms part of this case.

3. (c) In consideration of the advance made by the Board of Works the lands were charged with an annuity of £41 2s. 0d. in favour of the Board, payable for 35 years. The annuity was subsequently reduced to £32 17s. 8d. and the term extended under Section 24 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, and a further reduction of the annuity has since been made by virtue of the provisions of Section 25 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896. The annuity now stands at £17 19s. 8d., the Poor Law Valuation of the lands being £39 5s. 0d.

4. (d) The Surveyor of Taxes had based the assessment on the Poor Law Valuation which is less than the original annuity.

III. The Respondent contended that the annuity of £17 19s.8d. was a purchase annuity and that the assessment should be based on that amount and not on the Poor Law Valuation. He relied on Section 22 (2) (c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915.

IV. It was contended, on behalf of the Crown-

1. (a) that the annuity was not a "purchase annuity payable under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts" within the meaning of Section 22 (2) (c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and that the Acts under which the advance was made and the annuity charged are not Acts for the purchase of land;

2. (b) that the assessment had been correctly based on the Poor Law Valuation.

V. Having considered the whole of the facts and contentions as herein set out we were of opinion that the amount payable to the Board of Works constitutes a purchase annuity under the Land Purchase Acts. We were further of opinion that as the annuity represents two-thirds only of the value of the land it was somewhat doubtful whether it falls within Section 22 (2) (c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915. We, however, thought it right to give...