TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Valuation of Non-Cash Assets for Income Tax: Important Factors to Consider</h1> <h3>Rushden Heel Co. Ltd. Versus Keene (H.M. Inspector of Taxes) and Inland Revenue Commissioners</h3> The judgment concluded that non-cash assets, such as shares, should be valued in money for income-tax purposes in the year of receipt, even if not ... - Issues Involved:1. Proper valuation of non-cash assets for income-tax purposes.2. Whether the Commissioners proceeded on the correct principle in valuing the shares.3. Treatment of assets not immediately realisable.4. Assessment of profits and gains for income-tax purposes in the relevant accounting year.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Proper valuation of non-cash assets for income-tax purposesThe main question was whether fully paid shares acquired by the Trust under agreements should be valued for income-tax purposes and included in the computation of profits and gains. The Trust argued that the shares could not be given a cash value unless they were readily convertible into money in the year of receipt. The respondent countered that the shares should be valued, taking into account all relevant circumstances, even if not immediately realisable. The judgment concluded that an asset such as a block of shares could be valued in money for income-tax purposes in the year of receipt, even if it could not be immediately realised. The valuation should consider factors like the terms of the agreement, marketability, and the general outlook for the business.Issue 2: Whether the Commissioners proceeded on the correct principle in valuing the sharesThe Commissioners initially valued the shares at par, equating to the price agreed upon in the sale agreements. The appellant challenged this valuation, arguing that it was based on the incorrect assumption that the shares must be valued at the par figure because they were allotted as the agreed consideration. The judgment found that the Commissioners should not have assumed the shares were worth their par value solely based on the agreement terms. Instead, they should have considered other relevant factors to determine the proper valuation. The case was remitted back to the Commissioners to fix a proper figure in light of these directions.Issue 3: Treatment of assets not immediately realisableThe Trust argued that assets not immediately realisable should not be given a cash value for income-tax purposes. The judgment rejected this argument, stating that the inability to realise an asset immediately might reduce its present value but does not mean it should be treated as having no value. The valuation should reflect the asset's money value at the end of the accounting period, even if it is not realisable until later. The Commissioners were directed to consider all relevant circumstances, including the asset's marketability and the agreed consideration, to determine its value.Issue 4: Assessment of profits and gains for income-tax purposes in the relevant accounting yearThe judgment emphasized that for income-tax purposes, the profits and gains must be computed for the year in which the transaction took place. The fact that an asset cannot be realised immediately does not mean that no profit or gain has been made. The Commissioners should assess the money value of the shares received in the relevant accounting year, considering factors like marketability and the terms of the sale agreement. The judgment concluded that the Commissioners should re-evaluate the shares' value, considering all relevant factors, and not solely rely on the par value stipulated in the agreement.Separate Judgments:- Viscount Simon: Agreed with the main judgment and emphasized that the Commissioners should fix a proper figure considering all relevant circumstances.- Lord Uthwatt: Expressed complete agreement with the conclusions and reasoning of the main judgment.- Lord Oaksey: Highlighted the importance of assessing the profit in money terms in the relevant accounting year and criticized the assumption that shares must be valued at par. He argued that the Commissioners should determine the number of shares that could have been sold and their price, bringing that figure into the appellant's accounts.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, and the case was remitted to the Commissioners to reconsider and fix the proper valuation of the shares, taking into account all relevant factors and circumstances. No costs were awarded in respect of the appeals to the House.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
