9911796707
TMI Blog1935 (3) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpress his opinion as not admitting a doubt; but I have come to a conclusion which leads me to invite your Lordships to allow the appeal. The facts can be shortly stated. In 1920 the Birmingham Corporation laid a new tramway track between Salford Bridge, Erdington, and the works of the Dunlop Rubber Co. They laid the track by direct employment of labour and it cost for labour and materials £ 54,732. By agreement in writing between the Dunlop Co. and the corporation dated April 19, 1920, the corporation agreed to construct the tramway; and the company agreed that if the corporation had completed the tramway and commenced a reasonable service on or before June 1, 1920, the company would pay the corporation £ 10,000, and a further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forms, the substance of the matter being that the corporation certified that the stipulated number of unemployed men had been employed and that wages had been paid up to or in excess of the amount of the promised grant. Payments were made by the committee on these applications in respect of these tramway tracks to the amount of £ 46,238, thus reducing the amount actually borne by the corporation to £ 225,161. The question that arises on these figures is as to the amount which the corporation is entitled to claim as an allowance for wear and tear in respect of these tramway tracks under Rule 6 of the rules of Cases I and II of the Income Tax Act, 1918. I will not read the rules but will premise that it is common ground that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grant must be based upon the total expenditure, leaving the question as to the limit of the aggregate to be determined when that question arose under sub-Rule 6. In the present case it arose in the case of the first tramway for the year 1930-31; in the case of the second tramway for the year 1931-32. The Inspector of Taxes claimed that "the actual cost to the corporation" must be measured by deducting from the total expenditure in the first case the amount paid to the corporation by the Dunlop Co., in the second case the amount of the Government grant. Added to the previous allowances the full allowances would make up for the years in question an aggregate in excess of the "actual cost" so ascertained. The question now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dge, though thinking the objection reasonable, could find in the Income Tax Acts no restriction on the aggregate of the allowances to be granted. He pointed out, as is conceded, that if the plant were sold the allowances would begin again on the value of the plant to the new owner. After this decision, and undoubtedly in consequence of it, there was passed in 1907 a section in the terms of the present sub-Rule 6. I entirely agree with the submission of the Attorney-General that you must not restrict the plain words of a remedial section so as to apply them only to the mischief which occasion the enactment. But you may look at the mischief as one of the elements assisting you to construe the words of the remedy. You may also look at the use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of the tramways out of their funds unless the first half of the Dunlop contribution was so applied: as to which there is no evidence; nor is it material. I myself should not have thought the answer of counsel for the appellants to the question put by Romer, L.J., would have been what he suggests. On the hypothesis that the Dunlop Co. had recouped the corporation the whole of the cost of the first tramway, I should have thought the answer to "what did it cost you?" or "what did it actually cost you?" would have been "it actually cost us £ 54,732, but none of the burden of that cost will fall on the corporation for the Dunlop Co. have paid us the full amount". I think the same result is arrived at by say ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
