Anou Scope

Front 1

CIR v Brander & Cruickshank

Back 1

A firm of Scottish lawyers who in addition were secretaries and registrars for companies. One of these was Holdings Ltd who were bought out by Unilever Ltd and paid compensation of £2500. The crown argued that this income was trading receipts but they successfully argued that the money was for loss of office and exempt as a redundancy payment. (Charge to Tax, Ch 1 P17)

Front 2

Davies v Braithwaite

Back 2

An actress claimed that each acting job was a separate employment, the rules at the time meant she would not pay UK tax on her US work. The court ruled that each engagement was not separate but arose in the course of her profession and as such taxed as trading income. (Charge to Tax, Ch 1 P20)

Front 3

Fry v Burma Corporation Ltd

Back 3

A case concerning a mining business, that provided an early definition of trade. Of using the earths resources, manufacturing, buying and selling or offering services.

Front 4

Smith Barry v Cordy

Back 4

Provided a definition of trade, the ordinary dictionary definition and other words that enlarge the scope of Schedule D.

Front 5

Ransom v Higgs

Back 5

A definition of trade, denoting operations of a commercial character by which the trader provides to customers for reward some kind of goods or services.

Front 6

Edwards v Bairstow and Harrison

Back 6

Bought a spinning plant to sell for profit, they split it down into five lots over many months. A tribunal found that as it was a one-off but the judges over-ruled as it was an adventure in the nature of trade.

Front 7

Marson v Morton

Back 7

Profit on a single land transaction was found to be a capital rather than trading receipt. The judge came up with nine badges of trade.

Front 8

Grove v YMCA

Back 8

An on site restaurant was found to be trading even though other parts of the YMCA (classes, etc.) were not run on a commercial basis

Front 9

CIR v Livingstone and Others

Back 9

Three associates bought a cargo ship and converted it to a drifter and sold for profit. Although a one-off Judge found it had 'characteristics of ordinary trading.'

Front 10

CIR v Fraser

Back 10

Woodcutter profited from selling whisky, although many badges were neutral and his day job was not connected. He was trading as he went about selling the whisky the same as any dealer. Also buying more whisky than can be drank and must be sold to realise a profit is significant. This case also gave us three reasons for buying something (personal enjoyment, investment or profit).

Front 11

Pickford v Quirke

Back 11

Made a profit selling a series of four cotton mills, found to be a trade. One transaction does not make a trader, but if repeated and systematic then he becomes a trader

Front 12

Leach v Pogson

Back 12

Sold a driving school as capital gain and then sold 30 more. Judge ruled it was trading and that later transactions reflected on the first.

Front 13

Rutledge v CIR

Back 13

Purchased 1M toilet rolls in Berlin, took them to London and sold in one transaction. Court ruled it was an' adventure in the nature of trade' as only reason to buy so many is to sell them.

Front 14

Harvey v Caulcott

Back 14

Builder sold houses many years after building them. Court commented case was coloured by his similar trade, but found in his favour due to length of time owned.

Front 15

Cape Brandy Syndicate v CIR

Back 15

Three wine merchants bought S Africa brandy, mixed it with French brandy and put it in smaller casks and sold in the UK. They argued it was speculative investment but as they modified the assets character in both mixing it and putting it in smaller casks was a factor.

Front 16

Martin v Lowry

Back 16

Bought surplus linen after WWI, couldn't sell it to Belfast Linen so set up a staff of sales clerks, advertises and experts to sell it. He was trading and key factor was the sales team he had assembled.

Front 17

Wisdom v Chamberlain

Back 17

Bought silver bullion to protect against sterling devaluation. He took out a loan that could only be paid back selling the asset. Found to be trading as he owned them a short length of time, no pride of ownership and the way it was funded.

Front 18

Taylor v Good

Back 18

Purchased a country house but his wife refused to live there. So he got planning permission for 90 houses and made a profit. Was found not to be trading, he argued that his intentions were not trading but his actions were in line with any home owner enhancing the value of a capital asset.

Front 19

Iswera v CIR

Back 19

Borrowed money to buy 2.5 acres near school and split it into plots and sold them. She kept two for herself and was found to be trading as primary motive was to profit and get her own plot cheaper.

Front 20

Lionel Simmons Properties v CIR

Back 20

Formed several companies to develop property with the aim of floatation. Didn't work so they sold properties and liquidated, properties were found to be investments and not trading stock. Gave us the concept that an asset can only have one status at any given time

Front 21

Kirkham v Williams

Back 21

Land acquired for principal purpose of providing office and storage for plant hire business. A house was built and then plot sold, not trading as when purchased the purpose was too indefinite to prove trading.

Front 22

Hudson Bay Company v Stevens

Back 22

Gave up rights to land in Canada in exchange for cash and reclaimation rights, reclaimed land was then sold. Not found to be trading as company had not bought the land, Judge likened it to someone who had inherited land.

Front 23

Salt v Chamberlain

Back 23

Case law for individuals involving shares, buying and selling shares for individuals is not normally a trading activity.

Front 24

Lewis Emanuel & Sons Ltd v White

Back 24

Fruit and Veg importer started buying and selling securities. Claimed relief on losses on the securities, Judge concluded that it was a trade if it was a permitted activity in memorandum.

Front 25

Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Hills

Back 25

That a mutual fund where participators contribute to a common fund and have entitlement to the surplus can take any form, and that any such surplus is tax free.

Front 26

Styles v New York Life Insurance Co

Back 26

Members paid into insurance and any surplus after claims is paid back to the same members, surplus not a trading profit as individuals just getting a refund of their own money paid in.

Front 27

Graham v Green

Back 27

Lived off proceeds of betting on horses, court ruled he was not trading and also ruled that his winnings were not profits.

Front 28

Lindsay, Woodward & Hiscox v CIR

Back 28

Smuggled whisky to USA during prohibition.

Front 29

Mann v Nash

Back 29

Supplied fruit machines which were illegal, Judge found that just because trade was 'tainted with illegality' did not mean profits weren't taxable.

Front 30

Harrison (Watford) Ltd v Griffiths

Back 30

Judge commented that burglary was not a trade.

Front 31

Partridge v Mallandine

Back 31

Systematic receiving of stolen goods (fencing) was taxable.

Front 32

Wing v O'Connell

Back 32

Jockey given cash gift for winning a race, was found to be part of his business income as there was no element of it being made for personal reasons.

Front 33

Gray v Lord Penrhyn

Back 33

Quarry received compensation for misapropriated wages from auditors, was found to be trading income as it came in the course of business.

Front 34

Simpson v John Reynolds and Co (Insurances) Ltd

Back 34

Ex-client paid them £1k for five years in recognition of business association. Not trading incomes as it wasn't expected or solicited, was made after connection had ceased and would not be resumed, it was consolation for the relationship ending and was not compensation for inadequate renumeration.

Front 35

CIR v Falkirk Ice Rink Ltd

Back 35

Curling club made a donation to the ice rink to cover costs of curling. Was found to be a trading receipt as the payment was clearly to supplement trading receipts.

Front 36

McGowan v Brown and Cousins

Back 36

Estate agent negotiated a sale and expected the letting agency rights, they did not receive them and instead received a payment. Was found to be taxable as it was for work already done and was not unexpected.

Front 37

Murray v Goodhews

Back 37

Ran a number of pubs and the brewery cancelled the leases and gave them a compensation payment. Although the business relationship continued it was decided it was to acknowledge a long standing relationship and wasn't compensation for loss of profits so was not trading income.

Front 38

Severne v Dadswell

Back 38

Miller set up during WWII and was entitled to a standard profit from his mill after a rule change made him eligible. It was found that the payment was from the millers trade.

Front 39

Ellis v Lucas

Back 39

Accountant who was also a company auditor, he lost the post and was compensated £1500. The part of the payment relating to his loss of office was not trading income.

Front 40

Morley v Tattersall

Back 40

Horse auctioneers required a written order to pay sellers, otherwise they held onto the money. After six years they transferred the money to their own accounts on the provision they could still need to pay the sellers. Was not trading income as it was never there money and statute of limitation didn't apply as they would not start until written order was received.

Front 41

Jays the Jewellers Ltd v CIR

Back 41

Pawn brokers argued that the money they received from expired pledges were not taxable, court found they were taxable when the customer could no longer collect the money.

Front 42

Gold Coast Selection Trust Ltd v Humphrey

Back 42

Company sold gold mine concessions in exchange for shares, the courts found that the value of the shares at the AP end was the trade receipt value. The principle established is that the value of realisable assets should be included as trade receipts.

Front 43

Murphy v Australia Machinery and Investment Co Ltd

Back 43

Acquired shares in return for derelict gold mines, they sold the shares and the acquisition costs were deemed to be the value of the mines at disposal. The principle arising being the value of assets given in exchange for trading stock should be deducted in computing Part 2 ITTOIA or Part 3 CTA profits.

Front 44

Harvey v Caulcott

Back 44

Builder sold houses many years after building them. Court commented case was coloured by his similar trade, but found in his favour due to length of time owned.