| Case ID |
051265a6-dcd0-416b-8c7d-995ddb5ccfb4 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 1943 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 1943 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 01, 1943 |
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court concluded that the sum received by the company under the insurance policy was a receipt on revenue account and not on capital account. The nature of the payment was determined to be a revenue receipt as it was intended to compensate the company for the loss of valuable services provided by Mr. Crawford. The judgment emphasized that insurance proceeds received to offset a loss of revenue due to the absence of a key employee must be treated as revenue, regardless of whether the payment is a lump sum or periodic payments. The case established important principles regarding the taxation of insurance proceeds and their classification for income tax purposes. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of insurance proceeds received by a company and their classification for income tax purposes. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether a sum of £15,000 received by a company under a life insurance policy for one of its directors was to be treated as a capital or revenue receipt. The court ruled that the proceeds were revenue receipts because they were intended to compensate the company for the loss of the valuable services of Mr. Crawford. The decision highlighted that insurance moneys received to cover the revenue loss from the death or disablement of a key employee should be classified as revenue, regardless of whether it is a lump sum or a series of payments. This case is significant in establishing the legal precedent for the treatment of insurance proceeds in relation to income tax liabilities, particularly for small companies where key employees significantly impact business operations. The ruling underscores the importance of understanding the nature of receipts in taxation matters, especially in cases involving insurance policies. The case also refers to previous judgments and clarifies the distinction between capital and income receipts, providing a clearer framework for similar future cases. The discussions in court emphasized the subjective nature of determining the classification of such receipts and the necessity for businesses to carefully consider their insurance policies and the implications for tax liability. |
| Court |
Court of Appeal
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
LORD GREENE, M.R.,
SCOTT,
MACKINNON, LJ.
|
| Lawyers |
Daynes, K.C.,
Scrimgeour,
Sir Donald Somervell, K.C.,
R.P. Hills
|
| Petitioners |
Inland Revenue Commissioners
|
| Respondents |
D.H. Williams’ Executors
|
| Citations |
1943 SLD 53,
(1943) 11 ITR 84
|
| Other Citations |
Chibbett v. Robinson & Sons [1924] 132 LT 26,
Du Cros v. Ryall [1935] 19 Tax Cas. 444,
Mitchell v. Noble Ltd. [1927] 96 LJKB 484,
Murphy v. Gray & Co. [1940] 109 LJKB 771,
R. v. British Columbia Fir & Lumber Co. [1932] 101 LJPC 113
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1918
|
| Sections |
Not available
|