Deeming provision for non-resident income charged the taxpayer on the whole income; later amendment did not narrow liability.

Under section 18 of the Finance Act, 1936, the deeming rule was applied to charge the taxpayer on the entire income of the non-resident companies, not merely the portion actually enjoyed, because the extended concept of "power to enjoy" covered benefits arising from the income and the increased value of assets held for his benefit. Later amendment in the Finance Act, 1938 did not alter the meaning of the earlier provision, and the double taxation complaint failed because the son's income and the companies' income were treated as distinct taxable subjects. The liability under the assessments therefore remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under section 18 of the Finance Act, 1936, the taxpayer was chargeable on the whole income of the non-resident companies or only on the part of that income to which he had actual power to enjoy; (ii) whether the later amendment in the Finance Act, 1938, and the complaint of double taxation altered the construction or result under the earlier provision.

Issue (i): Whether, under section 18 of the Finance Act, 1936, the taxpayer was chargeable on the whole income of the non-resident companies or only on the part of that income to which he had actual power to enjoy.

Analysis: The statutory language of section 18, read with the extended definition of "power to enjoy" in subsection (3), was held not to confine the deemed income to the amount of benefit actually received by the taxpayer. The receipt of income by the non-resident companies increased the value of assets held for his benefit and brought the case within the deeming provisions. The Court treated the phrase "that income" as referring to the income of the non-resident person within the statutory scheme, not merely to the portion directly enjoyed in fact.

Conclusion: The taxpayer was chargeable in respect of the entire income of the Canadian companies. The issue was decided against the taxpayer and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the later amendment in the Finance Act, 1938, and the complaint of double taxation altered the construction or result under the earlier provision.

Analysis: The Court held that later legislation could not be used to construe the earlier enactment in the manner contended for, particularly for assessments relating to periods before the amendment. The objection based on double taxation was rejected because the son's income and the companies' income were treated as different subjects of tax, and the asserted hardship did not affect the statutory liability imposed as a deterrent measure.

Conclusion: The later amendment did not control the meaning of section 18, and the complaint of double taxation failed. The issue was decided against the taxpayer and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the construction of the deeming provision and no ancillary objection displaced the liability imposed by the assessments.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a deeming provision covers income of a non-resident person and expands "power to enjoy" by reference to increased asset value or benefits, the taxpayer may be charged on the whole relevant income within the statutory scheme, and later amending legislation cannot be used to narrow the meaning of the earlier enactment.

---