9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1936 regarding the avoidance of income tax. 2. Analysis of arrangements made in 1933 to avoid British taxation. 3. Determination of whether the transfer of assets in the arrangement falls under Section 18. 4. Examination of whether partnership profits can be considered income payable to a partner. 5. Consideration of the proviso in Section 18 exempting cases where transfer was not for tax avoidance. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the issue of interpreting Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1936, aimed at preventing the avoidance of income tax through asset transfers. The court scrutinizes the appellant's attempt to avoid British taxation through complex arrangements and emphasizes the legislative intent behind such provisions to curb tax evasion. 2. The court delves into the arrangements made in 1933, involving a partnership firm in Rhodesia and the transfer of shares to a company formed for the purpose. The court highlights the appellant's contention that the scheme was a bona fide commercial operation, not solely for tax avoidance. However, the court dismisses this argument, affirming that the arrangements were primarily designed to avoid British taxation. 3. The judgment scrutinizes whether the transfer of assets in the arrangement falls within the ambit of Section 18. The court analyzes the language of the section and the specific arrangements, emphasizing the power to enjoy income acquired through the transfer. The court rejects the appellant's argument that partnership profits cannot be considered income payable to a partner, citing precedents and the broad definition of associated operations. 4. The court examines whether partnership profits can be deemed income payable to a partner, emphasizing that the partner has means to ensure their share reaches them. The court dismisses the argument that the absence of specific machinery for calculating profits under Section 18 implies exemption for income earned abroad, reiterating the applicability of the section to income receivable by a partner from partnership property. 5. The judgment also considers the proviso in Section 18 exempting cases where the transfer was not for tax avoidance purposes. The court acknowledges the stricter application of the proviso in later provisions but upholds the finding by the Special Commissioners that the transfer in this case was primarily aimed at avoiding tax liability. In conclusion, the court dismisses the appeal, affirming that the appellant's attempt to avoid British income tax through the complex arrangements made in 1933 has been thwarted by the provisions of the Finance Act, 1936. The judgment underscores the legislative measures to prevent tax evasion and upholds the application of Section 18 in curbing such practices.
|
