Rent-free residence as taxable income was rejected where the benefit was not money or money's worth.

A rent-free residence provided to a bank agent for use in performing his duties was treated as outside assessable income because it was neither a money payment nor a receipt convertible into money, and did not amount to a profit or gain in the relevant statutory sense. The House of Lords reasoned that the income-tax schedules were exhaustive of chargeable receipts and that a mere ancillary advantage or saving in house rent could not be taxed unless it fell within the Act's charging language and could be valued as money's worth. The residence was therefore not taxable as an emolument or brought into account for income-tax purposes.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rent-free residence provided to a bank agent, who occupied it as part of his duties and without power to convert it into money, constituted income or a taxable emolument so as to be brought into account in assessing total income for income-tax purposes.

Analysis: The statutory schedules were treated as exhaustive of the kinds of income and occupation that could be charged, and the residence in question did not fall within the ordinary meaning of income. It was not a money payment, nor a receipt convertible into money, nor a profit or gain arising in the relevant sense. The occupation was ancillary to employment and served as accommodation for performance of duty, but the benefit of saving house rent was not itself taxable income. The provisions relied upon did not authorize taxation of a mere advantage unless it could be valued as money's worth and fitted within the charging language of the Act.

Conclusion: The rent-free residence was not assessable income, and it could not be brought into account under the relevant income-tax schedules. The appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---