Between: Seymour - Appellant
And: Reed - Respondnent

Judges: Viscount Cave LC
Viscount Dunedin
Lord Atkinson
Lord Phillimore

Lord Carson

Subject References:
REVENUE
INCOME TAX
Profit from Employment
Proceeds of professional Cricketer's Benefit Match

Legislative References:
Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 & 9 Geo. 5, c. 40) - Sch. E, r. 1

Case References:
Herbert v. McQuade distinguished - [1902] 2 K. B. 631
Blakiston v. Cooper distinguished - [1909] A.C. 104

Judgment date: 24 May 1927

Judgment by:
Lord Carson

My Lords, I concur with the motion proposed by the Lord Chancellor.

In each case it is important that the words of the rule should be kept prominently in mind. They are plain words, of no technical import, and, in my opinion, no previous authorities can assist, as each case must depend upon the particular facts proved.

In the present case the Commissioners were, in my opinion, fully entitled to decide as a question of fact that the sum in question was not wages or perquisites or profits accruing by reason of the employment of the appellant. In fact the money was never, in my opinion, the money of the club at all, but was subscribed by the public for the benefit of the appellant.

Speaking for myself alone, although, of course, the respondent was acting within his rights in the course this litigation has taken, I cannot help thinking that the case might well have been allowed to rest after the determination of the question by the Commissioners and Rowlatt J. Protracted litigation, whilst easy sailing for the Revenue, is a great burden on the subject in a case where, so far as I can see, no question of principle was involved. I hope the appellant will be fully indemnified against costs.

Order of the Court of Appeal reversed, and order of Rowlatt J. restored. The respondent to pay the costs in the Court of Appeal and also the costs of the appeal to this House. Cause remitted back to the King's Bench Division to do therein as shall be just and consistent with this judgment.

Lords' Journals, May 24, 1927.

Solicitors for the appellant: Halsey, Lightly & Hemsley.

Solicitor for the respondent: The Solicitor of Inland Revenue.