1955 (11) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Taxable profits from stud farm trading under Income Tax Act 1918 clarified by court decision.

Sharkey (Inspector of Taxes) Versus Wernher

Sharkey (Inspector of Taxes) Versus Wernher - [1956] A. C. 58, [1956] 29 ITR 962 Issues Involved:1. Taxability of profits from a stud farm under Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918.2. Determination of the value to be credited in trading accounts for transferred horses.3. Applicability of market value versus cost of production for tax purposes.4. Interpretation of 'profits or gains' under Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1941.5. Principle of notional versus actual profits in income tax law.6. Concept of trading with oneself and its implications for tax assessments.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Taxability of profits from a stud farm under Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918:The court addressed whether the profits or gains arising from Lady Zia's stud farm, which were used to supply her racing stables, should be taxed under Schedule D. It was determined that the stud farm was a taxable activity under Case I of Schedule D, as per the Income Tax Act, 1918, and the Finance Act, 1941.2. Determination of the value to be credited in trading accounts for transferred horses:The main question was whether the trading account of the stud farm should be credited with the market value of the horses at the time of transfer or their cost of production. The court concluded that the trading account should reflect the market value of the horses, as this would provide a more accurate representation of the actual profits made by the stud farm.3. Applicability of market value versus cost of production for tax purposes:The court rejected the argument that the cost of production should be used, emphasizing that imputing a non-existent profit or a notional balancing figure is incorrect. The judgment stated, 'One must not impute to the taxpayer profits which he might have made but has not in fact made.' The correct approach is to use the market value of the transferred horses, ensuring that the trading account accurately reflects the enterprise's financial activities.4. Interpretation of 'profits or gains' under Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1941:The court interpreted 'profits or gains' to mean actual commercial profits, not notional or hypothetical profits. It was held that Lady Zia's activities, including the transfer of horses to her racing establishment, did not generate taxable profits under Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1941, as they were not sold or disposed of in the course of trade.5. Principle of notional versus actual profits in income tax law:The judgment reinforced the principle that income tax should be based on actual profits, not notional or hypothetical figures. The court cited several precedents, including Laycock v. Freeman, Hardy & Willis Ltd. and Briton Ferry Steel Co. Ltd. v. Barry, to support the view that profits must be real and not imputed. The court stated, 'A man cannot trade with himself or make a profit out of himself in any circumstances.'6. Concept of trading with oneself and its implications for tax assessments:The court clarified that a person cannot trade with themselves for tax purposes. It was emphasized that 'no man can trade with himself; he cannot make, in what is its true sense or meaning, taxable profit by dealing with himself.' Therefore, the transfer of horses from Lady Zia's stud farm to her racing stables did not constitute a taxable event, as it did not involve an actual sale or disposal in the course of trade.In conclusion, the court held that the trading account of the stud farm should be credited with the market value of the transferred horses, ensuring that the actual profits of the enterprise are accurately reflected for tax purposes. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed, restoring the judgment of Vaisey J.