Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the legal and accountancy expenses incurred in prosecuting an appeal against an excess profits tax assessment were deductible in computing trading profits for income-tax and excess profits tax purposes.
Analysis: The statutory test under Rule 3(a) of the Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918, allowed only expenses wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the trade. The majority held that the costs of contesting a tax assessment were incurred to reduce or determine the amount payable to the Crown out of profits already earned, and were therefore not expenses of earning profits in the trade. Section 18(1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939, which allowed excess profits tax itself to be deducted as an expense for income-tax purposes, did not extend to the cost of disputing that tax. The suggested additional motive of retaining a key manager did not alter the finding that the immediate and substantive purpose of the expenditure was tax reduction.
Conclusion: The expenses were not deductible as money wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the trade, and the appeals failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure incurred in contesting a tax assessment is not deductible under the trading-expense rule because it is laid out for the purpose of determining or reducing tax on profits already earned, not for the purpose of earning those profits.