1969 (2) TMI 190 - Other - Income Tax

House of Lords rules farmhouse expenses fully deductible for tax

Inland Revenue Commissioners Versus Korner

The appeal was dismissed, with the House of Lords affirming that the expenses incurred on the House of Elrig, considered the farmhouse, were fully ... - Issues Involved:1. Deductibility of expenses for the purposes of income tax.2. Definition and scope of 'farmhouse' under section 526(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1952.3. Application of section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1952, to the expenses incurred on the farmhouse.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deductibility of Expenses for the Purposes of Income Tax:The primary issue in this case concerns whether the expenses incurred on rates, repairs, maintenance, and insurance of the House of Elrig, which is part of the Elrig Estate, are deductible for income tax purposes. The Special Commissioners initially allowed only one-tenth of these expenses as deductions, but the First Division of the Court of Session reversed this decision, allowing the whole of the expenses as proper deductions.Lord Guest emphasized that the expenses were 'wholly and exclusively laid out on the farmhouse' and were reasonable. He argued that if the House of Elrig was indeed the farmhouse, then the expenses on its maintenance should be considered part of the trading assets of the farming business and thus deductible in full. He disagreed with the Special Commissioners' apportionment of the expenses, stating that there was no warrant under section 137 for such an apportionment.Lord Upjohn concurred, stating that the expenses for rates, repairs, and insurance were typical of those that should be allowed under paragraph (a) of section 137. He argued that these expenses were not for private or domestic purposes but were necessary for the upkeep of the farmhouse, which was an asset of the farming business.Lord Donovan also agreed, stating that the expenses on rates, repairs, maintenance, and insurance were necessary to earn the farming profits and should be deductible. He emphasized that any private benefit resulting from the expenditure was merely a by-product and not its purpose.2. Definition and Scope of 'Farmhouse' under Section 526(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1952:The second issue revolves around whether the House of Elrig qualifies as a 'farmhouse' under section 526(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1952. This section defines 'farm land' to include the farmhouse and farm buildings.Lord Guest clarified that the proper construction of section 526(1) is that 'the farmhouse and farm buildings' are included as 'farmland' and that the words 'wholly or mainly occupied for the purposes of husbandry' do not qualify the words 'farmhouse and farm buildings.' He stated that once a house qualifies as a farmhouse, it becomes part of the trading assets of the farm, and all reasonable expenses incurred on its maintenance should be deductible.Lord Upjohn highlighted that the Crown conceded that the House of Elrig was the farmhouse for the purposes of section 526. He emphasized that the farmhouse should be treated as part of the assets of the farming business, just like the land, and not comparable to the dwelling-house of a grocer, doctor, or barrister.Lord Donovan noted that the Special Commissioners were not satisfied that the House of Elrig was the farmhouse, given its substantial size and limited use for farming business. However, he acknowledged that the point had been conceded for the present proceedings.3. Application of Section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1952, to the Expenses Incurred on the Farmhouse:The third issue involves the application of section 137, which prohibits the deduction of expenses not wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the trade and expenses for private or domestic purposes.Lord Guest argued that since the House of Elrig was the farmhouse and part of the farmland, the expenses on its maintenance should not be considered for private or domestic purposes distinct from the trade of farming. He stated that the First Division was correct in allowing the full deduction of the expenses.Lord Upjohn emphasized that the expenses on the farmhouse were typical of those allowed under paragraph (a) of section 137 and should be deductible in full. He disagreed with the Crown's contention that only a proportion of the expenses should be allowed.Lord Donovan agreed that the expenses on rates, repairs, maintenance, and insurance were necessary for the farming business and should be deductible. He stated that any private benefit resulting from the expenditure was incidental and not its primary purpose.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, with the House of Lords agreeing that the expenses incurred on the House of Elrig, as the farmhouse, should be fully deductible for income tax purposes. The judges emphasized that the farmhouse should be treated as part of the trading assets of the farming business, and the expenses on its maintenance were necessary and reasonable. The application of section 137 did not warrant an apportionment of the expenses, as they were not for private or domestic purposes distinct from the trade of farming.