Concurrent findings of fact do not create a question of law in appeal; business-loss finding upheld.

A pure finding of fact, including concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, does not by itself give rise to a maintainable question of law in appeal. The conclusion that the losses were business losses was based on the facts found below, so no legal issue arose for appellate consideration. Where concurrent factual findings exist, no question of law is generated on that issue, and the appeal fails.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the finding that the losses suffered were business losses gave rise to a maintainable question of law in appeal. (ii) Whether the existence of concurrent findings of fact on the second question excluded any question of law.

Issue (i): Whether the finding that the losses suffered were business losses gave rise to a maintainable question of law in appeal.

Analysis: The finding that the losses were business losses was based on the facts found by the Tribunal. A pure finding of fact does not, by itself, generate a question of law for appellate consideration.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of concurrent findings of fact on the second question excluded any question of law.

Analysis: The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had recorded concurrent findings of fact in favour of the assessee. Where such concurrent findings exist, no question of law arises for decision in appeal.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both questions as no maintainable question of law arose from the findings recorded below.

Ratio Decidendi: A pure finding of fact, including concurrent findings of fact, does not give rise to a question of law in appeal.

---