Seymour v Reed

[1927] A.C. 554

---

(Judgment by: Viscount Dunedin)

Between: Seymour - Appellant
And: Reed - Respondnent

Court:

Judges: Viscount Cave LC

Viscount DunedinLord 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:
Viscount Dunedin

My Lords, I concur in all that my Lord has said. I have had the advantage of reading the opinion which is about to be delivered by my noble friend, Lord Phillimore, and I concur entirely with his exposition and analysis of what are generally known as the Easter offerings cases.

Personally I cannot help thinking that the whole trouble in this case has rather arisen from the fact that, although, of course, the controversy necessarily turned upon the particular words of Sch. E, yet, at the same time, I think it was a little forgotten to pay attention to the warning which I remember Lord Macnaghten gave us years ago when he said:

"My Lords, I wish to remind you that income tax is a tax upon income."

When I think of this little nest egg - which, of course, paid income tax as an investment and which, now that it has taken the form of a farm, will pay income tax under Sch. A - being treated, the whole sum, as income, honestly, had it not been for the fact that honourable judges, whose opinions I respect, have come to another conclusion, I would have thought the contention was quite preposterous. I therefore concur in the motion which has been made.