In Reh (Earl of) v Revenue Commissioners

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 April 1930
• Date: 12 April 1930
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)

Iveagh v. Revenue Commrs.; and Revenue Commrs. v. Iveagh.

THE RIGHT HON. EDWARD CECIL, EARL OF IVEAGH

Appellant

and

THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

Respondents

and

THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

Appellants

and

THE RIGHT HON. EDWARD CECIL, EARL OF IVEAGH

Respondent

continued in the Names of the Right Hon. Rupert Edward Cecil Lee, Earl of Iveagh, the Hon. Arthur Ernest Guinness, the Right Hon. Walter Edward Guinness, and Christopher Harry Bland, Esq., the Executors of the Will of the Right Hon. Edward Cecil, Earl of Iveagh, who died on the 7th October,1927 (1)

High Court

Supreme Court

Revenue - Income tax - Super tax - Case stated - Jurisdiction of Special Commissioners - Whether person "domiciled" or "resident in" Irish Free State - Person having residences in both England and the Irish Free State - Questions of law or fact - Citizen of Irish Free State - Jurisdiction of High Court on hearing case stated - Income Tax Act,1918 (8 & 9 Geo. 5, c. 40), sect. 149, Sch. D., par. 1 (a), rules 2 (a)and 3 of Rules applicable to Case IV, rule 3 (a) of Rules applicable to Case V - Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann éireann) Act,1922 (No. 1 of 1922), Sch. I., Art. 3 - Finance Act, 1925 (No. 28 of1925), sect. 12.

The Commissioners for the Special Purposes of the Income Tax Acts submitted on case stated the following questions for the opinion of the High Court:—1. Whether the appellant was domiciled in the Irish Free State in certain years of assessment? 2. Whether, in so far as the question was one of fact, there was any evidence before them upon which they could find (as they had found) that the appellant was a citizen of the Irish Free State, and that he was ordinarily resident therein in the years of assessment 1924-25, 1925-26, and 1926-27, and that he was not ordinarily resident therein in the year of assessment, 1923-24, within the meaning of Rule 2 (a)of Case IV and Rule 3 (a) of Case V of Schedule D., Income Tax Act, 1918; and whether, in so far as the question was one of law, they were right in so holding? 3. Whether, in so far as the question was one of fact, there was any evidence upon which they could find (as they had found) that the appellant was a person residing in the Irish Free State in the years of assessment, 1924-25, 1925-26, and 1926-27, and was not a person residing therein in the years of assessment, 1922-23 and 1923-24, within the meaning of Rule 1 (a) of Schedule D., Income Tax Act, 1918; and whether, in so far as the question was one of law, they were right in so holding.

The High Court answered the first question in the negative, holding that on the evidence, the appellant had abandoned his domicile of origin in the Irish Free State, and had acquired a domicile of choice in England. In answer to the second question, the Court declared that there was no evidence before the Commissioners upon which they could find that the appellant was a citizen of the Irish Free State, since he was not domiciled therein at the time of the coming into operation of the Constitution, and, accordingly, that it was unnecessary to decide whether the appellant was ordinarily resident therein in any of the years of assessment; and that, in so far as the question was one of law, the Commissioners were wrong in so finding.

The Court answered the third question in the affirmative, holding that there was evidence upon which the Commissioners could find that the appellant was a person residing in the Irish Free State in the years of assessment, 1924-25, 1925-26, and 1926-27, and was not a person residing therein in the years of assessment, 1922-23 and 1923-24.

The Revenue Commissioners appealed to the Supreme Court, and, upon the hearing of the appeal, one question only was argued, viz., the first, as to the domicile of the appellant.

Held, by the Supreme Court, that the jurisdiction of the Court in the proceedings was limited to hearing and determining a case stated upon a point of law; that the first question submitted on case was a question of fact, on which the decision of the Special Commissioners was final, and that, therefore, the appeal should be allowed and the order of the High Court discharged. Since, however, it was clear from the case stated that the findings of the Special Commissioners were based upon an erroneous view of the law applicable to domicile, the Court would deal with this question of law, which was the real question of law intended to be submitted on the case stated, by remitting the ease stated to the Commissioners with a declaration that the retention and occasional occupation of a residence in a domicile of origin is not incompatible with or conclusive against the acquisition of a domicile of choice.

Case Stated Under the Income Tax Act, 1918, Sect. 149, and the Finance Act, 1925, sect. 12, by the Commissioners for the Special Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the opinion of the High Court of Justice (1). The case was as follows:—

"1. At meetings of the Commissioners for the Special Purposes of the Income Tax Acts held on the 17th and 18th August, 1927, at Dublin, for the purpose of hearing appeals, the Right Hon. Edward Cecil, Earl of Iveagh, since deceased (hereinafter called 'the appellant'), appealed against the following assessments to income tax under Cases IV and V of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918, in respect of foreign securities and foreign possessions:—

Year of assessment.	Amount of assessment.
1923-1924	£278,414.
1924-1925	£700,000.
1925-1926	£700,000.
1926-1927	£700,000.

and against the following assessments of super tax:—

Year of assessment.	Amount of assessment.
1923-1924	£648,842.
1924-1925	£700,000.
1925-1926	£700,000.

on the ground that he was not a person residing in Saorstát Éireann éireann in any of the years of assessment from 1923-24 to 1926-27 inclusive—hereinafter referred to as 'the years of assessment'; and, as regards the assessment to super tax for the year 1923-24, that he was not a person residing in Saorstát Éireann éireann in the year 1922-23. The amount of the super tax assessment for the year 1923-24 was adjusted in accordance with the provisions of sect. 2 of the Finance Act, 1923 (No. 21 of 1923).

The appellant also claimed that he was not domiciled, and that he was not ordinarily resident, in Saorstát Éireann éireann in any of the years of assessment, and that, therefore, if he was liable to income tax under the above-mentioned assessments, the bases of computation should be in accordance with Rule 2 of Case IV and Rule 2 of Case V of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918, and not in accordance with Rule 1 of the respective Cases.

The decision of the Revenue Commissioners upon the representations made to them by the appellant on the questions of domicile and ordinary residence was in the following terms:—

'It is hereby certified that the Earl of Iveagh has not satisfied the Revenue Commissioners that he was not domiciled in Saorstát Éireann éireann for the years ended 5th April, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927.

'And it is hereby further certified that the said Earl of Iveagh has not satisfied the Revenue Commissioners that he was not ordinarily resident in Saorstát Éireann éireann for the said periods. W. D. Carey, Revenue Commissioner, 12th May, 1927.'

The appellant, being aggrieved by this decision, made an application by way of appeal, pursuant to the provisions of sect. 12 of the Finance Act, 1925 (No. 28 of 1925), to have heard and determined a claim for relief based on questions as to domicile and ordinary residence arising under paragraph (a)of Rule 2 of the rules applicable to Case IV, and paragraph (a)of Rule 3 of the rules applicable to Case V of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918.

The application by way of appeal on the questions of domicile and ordinary residence was heard by the Special Commissioners at the same time as the appeal against the assessments above-mentioned.

2. The following are the facts of the case as given in the evidence of the appellant and his private secretary, who were the only witnesses examined at the hearing of the appeal:—

The appellant was born at St. Anne's, Clontarf, County Dublin, in the year 1847, and spent his youth at his father's residences at St. Anne's and at St. Stephen's Green, Dublin. He was the third son of Sir Benjamin Lee Guinness, Baronet. At the date of the appellant's birth his father was domiciled in that portion of Ireland which is now known as Saorstát Éireann éireann.

3. Upon the death of his father, in 1868, the appellant, under his father's will, became entitled equally with his brother, Arthur Edward Guinness (afterwards Lord Ardilaun), the eldest son of Sir Benjamin Lee Guinness, to the brewery concerns and business which had been carried on by his father at St. James's Gate, Dublin, under the name of Arthur Guinness, Son, & Company.

4. The appellant also became entitled under the will of his father to a life interest in property situate at and adjoining St. Stephen's Green, Dublin, including the family residence at Nos. 80 and 81 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin.

5. In 1871 the appellant took a lease of a house in Berkeley Square, London, which he furnished, and occupied as a residence.

6. In 1873 the appellant married Miss Adelaide Maria Guinness, a daughter of the late Richard Samuel Guinness, Esq., who then resided in the County of Dublin.

7. About 1873 the appellant purchased the house and lands known as Farmleigh, Castleknock, County Dublin, as held under a sub-lease, as he wished to have a residence in proximity to, but outside, the City of Dublin. This residence is hereinafter referred to as 'Farmleigh.' In the year 1877 he acquired the fee-simple interest of this property, and of other surrounding properties, at Castleknock and Blanchardstown. The total area of this property was about 700 statute acres; but, owing to numerous sales of land which have taken place since 1899, its area was reduced...