Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

Along pending case, in which the colonies are to some extent interested, has at length been decided on an appeal to the House of Lords, by whom judgment was given on the 9th August ult. The case was thusMr Henry Brooks, of the firm of Henry Brooks and Co., London, is also a partner in the firm of Brooks, Robinson, and Co., of Melbourne, Victoria. The two businesses are entirely distinct. Mr Brooks resides in London, or at any rate in England, and in the year 1885 received from Melbourne a considerable sum of money on account of a portion of his share of the profits of the Melbourne business, leaving at the same time a large sum, the balance of his share of the profits, in the hands of the Melbourne firm. Mr Biooks was assessed to the income tax for the year ended sth April, 1885, ‘ ‘ not only upon the profits he received from the London firm, and upon the sum received by him” in England “from the profits of the Melbourne firm, but also upon the further amount ” retained by the Melbourne firm. The Income Tax Commissioners for the City of London reduced the assessment by that amount, but stated a case for the decision of the Court. “ Upon the argument of this case before the learned Judges of the Queen’s Bench Division they were divided in opinion ; but the junior Judge having withdrawn his judgment to allow of an appeal, judgment was given for the Crown. This judgment was appealed against, and the Court of Appeal gave judgment in favor of the respondent, adopting the view of the Commissioners,” This decision of the Court of Appeal, thus reversing the judgment in favor of the Crown was now appealed against, and their Lordships gave judgment affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeal. At the close of a closely reasoned address Lord Herschell said, referring to the section of the Act on which the claim was based; “ The whole section points, to my mind, strongly to the conclusion that moneys received in this country arising from possessions or securities outside its limits were supposed to be the only portion of what I have termed foreign income which was taxable. I do not pretend to say that any construction of the Act is free from difficulty, or to deny that some anomalies may possibly result from that which I advised your Lordships to adopt; but it appears to me to be the least open to objection, and which is most in accordance with the intention of the Legislature, so far as I can gather from the provisions of the Act taken as a whole. For these reasons I think the judgment appealed from ought to be confirmed.” Lord Macnaugbton delivered judgment to the same effect; Lord Fitzgerald concurred, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18891011.2.35

Bibliographic details

AN IMPORTANT DECISION., Evening Star, Issue 8035, 11 October 1889

Word Count
481

AN IMPORTANT DECISION. Evening Star, Issue 8035, 11 October 1889

Working