Irc v duke of westminster 1936 ac 1 pdf

Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Burmah Oil Co. Ltd.

irc v duke of westminster 1936 ac 1 pdf

IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 Case Archives. Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL ([1981] 1 All ER 865, [1982] AC 300, Bailii, [1981] UKHL 1, [1981] STC 174) The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax., What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? Question 5.

INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW DECISIONS

WHERE ARE WE WITH PART IVA austlii.edu.au. iii Table of Cases IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 Commissioners of Inland Revenue v McGuckian 1997 3 All ER 817 HL McDowell and Co Limited v CTO ITR 148 (1985) (India), Judicial approaches Literal construction of statutes: IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 Development of a judicial anti-avoidance principle? The “new approach”: IRC v Ramsay [1981] STC 174, Furniss v Dawson [1984] 1 All ER 530 After over 30 years of judicial development, much of it in the House of Lords,, the present position appears to.

IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 requires that the underlying transaction giving rise to the interest, and the interest itself, be characterised according to xviii Diamlerchrysler India (P.) Limited v DCIT,, (2009) 120 ITJ 803 (Pune ITAT). Dileworth v. Commission of Stamps (1899) AC 99. Dooger and Associates v.

The traditional “form” approach derived from the leading decision IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 requires that the underlying transaction giving rise to the interest, and the interest itself, be characterised according to the legal rights and obligations created evident from the objective intention of the parties. On the other hand, an “economic substance” approach allows for 3 Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Westminster (Duke), [1936] AC 1, at 19 (HL). 4 Subsection 245(4) of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as amended. 5 84 DTC 6305 (SCC). a period of interest n 305 Flanigan J of the Tax Review Board6 found that the transaction was a sham be-cause the parties contemplated its reversal, and that it was a transfer of the rights to income falling under

IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 at 19; Shell Canada Ltd. v. Canada, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 622, Para 45; CSARS v LG Electronics (428/09) [2010] ZASCA 79 (28 May 2010), Para 25; CSARS v NWK (27/10) [2010] ZASCA 168 (1 December 2010), Para 42 . University of Cape Town 2 1.3 Research Methodology . This dissertation follows a doctrinal research methodology. McKerchar (2008: 18-19) states that Taxpayer’s turnover represented the group’s turnover, the Taxpayer’s contribution to the group profits dropped from 31.19% in 1991/92 to 7.19% in 1995/96.

(Lord Tomlin, in the UK House of Lords case, IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936) 19 TC 490, [1936] AC 1) has been considerably restricted over the years by a line of cases designed to counter tax avoidance. What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? Question 5

What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1? What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1?

Lord Tomlin, IRC vs Duke of Westminster (1936 AC 1) Lord Sumner, IRC vs Fishers Executors (1926 AC 395) MORALITY OF TAX AVOIDANCE (2/2) Tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honorable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL ([1981] 1 All ER 865, [1982] AC 300, Bailii, [1981] UKHL 1, [1981] STC 174) The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax.

(1936) This case once defined the approach of the United Kingdom courts in tax cases, viz. that they were confined to applying the words of the statute literally, whether for From: IRC v Duke of Westminster in The New Oxford Companion to Law В» Duke of Westminster [1935] All ER 259 (H.L.) The Facts The Duke executed deeds with persons then in his employ (including his gardener) in which he covenanted to pay to them certain weekly sums for a period of seven years or the joint lives of the parties.

Lord Tomlin in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1. 5 “Sham” – US style (no business purpose) “The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted. But the question for determination is whether what was done, apart from the tax motive, was the thing which the statute What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? Question 4 (05 marks) Joseph (an accountant) and his wife Jane (a housewife) borrowed money to purchase a rental property as joint tenants. They entered into a written agreement which provided that Joseph is entitled to 20% of the profits from the property and Jane is

attaching under the appropriate Act is less than it would otherwise be” (cf: IRC v. Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 at 19). Part IVA seeks both to tax the amount that “would otherwise” not be caught, and to do so upon a basis that depends upon the making of a judgment on a particular selection of facts, rather than upon some precise and exacting application of the letter of the law to IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 requires that the underlying transaction giving rise to the interest, and the interest itself, be characterised according to

antara The Duke of Westminster dengan tukang kebunnya untuk merubah pembayaran gaji tukang kebunnya tersebut menjadi pembayaran anuitas sebagai balas atas jasa-jasa yang telah dilakukan tukang kebunnya di masa lalu. 19 IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1. 20 Ibid at 19. 21 It is a phrase used by the High Court of Australia in FCT v Spotless Services Ltd (1996) 186 CLR at 414.

3 Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Westminster (Duke), [1936] AC 1, at 19 (HL). 4 Subsection 245(4) of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as amended. 5 84 DTC 6305 (SCC). a period of interest n 305 Flanigan J of the Tax Review Board6 found that the transaction was a sham be-cause the parties contemplated its reversal, and that it was a transfer of the rights to income falling under Examples of tax avoidance involve using tax deductions, changing one's business structure through incorporation or establishing an offshore company in a tax haven.2 Lord Tomlin in IRC v Duke of Westminster 3has well said "Every man is entitled to order his affairs so that tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be" ( As the former British Chancellor of the

Lord Tomlin, IRC v Duke of Westminster (1936) AC 1 (1935) ALL ER Rep. 259 Critically analyse the extent to which the statement above applies to a property owner." This is the essay title and the word limit for this essay is 3000words please ensure you do not go over Continue Reading IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC: 1. (1993) 181 CLR: 359. In Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Peabody the Commissioner identified the scheme in wide terms as comprising ten steps.

Tomlin in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 is still true or partially true: “Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Act is less than it otherwise would be …”. PwC Alert Issue 95, May 2012 An overview of the Income Tax (APA) Rules 2012 7 PwC Alert Issue 116, October 2014 Tax avoidance 7 . Let's talk Kuala Lumpur Senior The most often quoted ruling on this subject confirming that tax avoidance is acceptable and legal comes from the court case of IRC v Duke of Westminster (1936). The Duke of Westminster paid his gardener a weekly wage and entered into an agreement by which he stopped paying the wage and instead drew up a covenant agreeing to pay an equivalent amount.

Examples of tax avoidance involve using tax deductions, changing one's business structure through incorporation or establishing an offshore company in a tax haven.2 Lord Tomlin in IRC v Duke of Westminster 3has well said "Every man is entitled to order his affairs so that tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be" ( As the former British Chancellor of the (Lord Tomlin, in the UK House of Lords case, IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936) 19 TC 490, [1936] AC 1) has been considerably restricted over the years by a line of cases designed to counter tax avoidance.

Deductibility of interest A Comparative core.ac.uk. 19 IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1. 20 Ibid at 19. 21 It is a phrase used by the High Court of Australia in FCT v Spotless Services Ltd (1996) 186 CLR at 414., IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 requires that the underlying transaction giving rise to the interest, and the interest itself, be characterised according to.

IRC v Home University of Toronto Faculty of Law

irc v duke of westminster 1936 ac 1 pdf

Ms Mcdowell And Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer. In the famous case of IRC v Duke of Westminster the Court held: “ Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that tax attaching under the appropriate Act is less than it would otherwise be., In IRC v Duke of Westminster,2 Lord Tomlin said that “every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be.”.

How relevant is irc v duke of westminster [1936] ac 1. Taxpayer’s turnover represented the group’s turnover, the Taxpayer’s contribution to the group profits dropped from 31.19% in 1991/92 to 7.19% in 1995/96., {GDS/01405457:1}© Geoff Stein and Amanda Comelli, Brown Wright Stein 2016 Disclaimer: The material and opinions in this paper are those of the author and not those of The Tax Institute..

A Critical Analysis of Tax Avoidance in the South African

irc v duke of westminster 1936 ac 1 pdf

revenue Flashcards Quizlet. Question 3 (04 marks) What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? Question 4 (05 marks) Joseph (an accountant) and his wife Jane (a housewife) borrowed money to purchase a rental property as joint tenants. In the famous case of IRC v Duke of Westminster the Court held: “ Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that tax attaching under the appropriate Act is less than it would otherwise be..

irc v duke of westminster 1936 ac 1 pdf


IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 case, a scheme whereby the taxpayer covenanted to pay his employee £1 and 18 shillings per week for a period of seven years (regardless of whether he continued to be in the taxpayer’s employ); the employee was legally entitled to a wage of £3 a week but was told that in practice he would only be expected to claim the balance of £1 and 2 shillings; and Lord Tomlin, IRC v Duke of Westminster (1936) AC 1 (1935) ALL ER Rep. 259 Critically analyse the extent to which the statement above applies to a property owner." This is the essay title and the word limit for this essay is 3000words please ensure you do not go over Continue Reading

3 Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Westminster (Duke), [1936] AC 1, at 19 (HL). 4 Subsection 245(4) of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as amended. 5 84 DTC 6305 (SCC). a period of interest n 305 Flanigan J of the Tax Review Board6 found that the transaction was a sham be-cause the parties contemplated its reversal, and that it was a transfer of the rights to income falling under The traditional “form ” approach derived from the leading decision IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 requires that the underlying transaction giving rise to the interest, and the interest itself, be characterised according to the legal rights and obligations created evident from the objective intention of the parties. On the other hand, an “economic substance ” approach allows for

The most often quoted ruling on this subject confirming that tax avoidance is acceptable and legal comes from the court case of IRC v Duke of Westminster (1936). The Duke of Westminster paid his gardener a weekly wage and entered into an agreement by which he stopped paying the wage and instead drew up a covenant agreeing to pay an equivalent amount. antara The Duke of Westminster dengan tukang kebunnya untuk merubah pembayaran gaji tukang kebunnya tersebut menjadi pembayaran anuitas sebagai balas atas jasa-jasa yang telah dilakukan tukang kebunnya di masa lalu.

In the famous case of IRC v Duke of Westminster the Court held: “ Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that tax attaching under the appropriate Act is less than it would otherwise be. Examples of tax avoidance involve using tax deductions, changing one's business structure through incorporation or establishing an offshore company in a tax haven.2 Lord Tomlin in IRC v Duke of Westminster 3has well said "Every man is entitled to order his affairs so that tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be" ( As the former British Chancellor of the

The principle in the IRC vs Duke of Westminster 1936 ac 1 was that a person can manage his financial affairs in such a way that he has to pay lesser tax. iii Table of Cases IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 Commissioners of Inland Revenue v McGuckian 1997 3 All ER 817 HL McDowell and Co Limited v CTO ITR 148 (1985) (India)

attaching under the appropriate Act is less than it would otherwise be” (cf: IRC v. Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 at 19). Part IVA seeks both to tax the amount that “would otherwise” not be caught, and to do so upon a basis that depends upon the making of a judgment on a particular selection of facts, rather than upon some precise and exacting application of the letter of the law to Judicial approaches Literal construction of statutes: IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 Development of a judicial anti-avoidance principle? The “new approach”: IRC v Ramsay [1981] STC 174, Furniss v Dawson [1984] 1 All ER 530 After over 30 years of judicial development, much of it in the House of Lords,, the present position appears to

Lord Tomlin, IRC v Duke of Westminster (1936) AC 1 (1935) ALL ER Rep. 259 Law Essay Help . Lord Tomlin, IRC v Duke of Westminster (1936) AC 1 (1935) ALL ER Rep. 259Critically analyse the extent to which the statement above applies to a property owner. This is the essay title and the word limit for this essay is 3000words please ensure you do not go over this word limit even by one word and (Lord Tomlin, in the UK House of Lords case, IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936) 19 TC 490, [1936] AC 1) has been considerably restricted over the years by a line of cases designed to counter tax avoidance.

Tax-avoidance after Spotless – Parliament of Australia

irc v duke of westminster 1936 ac 1 pdf

Dealing with the Death of a Duke The Need to Limit the. The traditional “form” approach derived from the leading decision IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 requires that the underlying transaction giving rise to the interest, and the interest itself, be characterised according to the legal rights and obligations created evident from the objective intention of the parties. On the other hand, an “economic substance” approach allows for, IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 at 19; Shell Canada Ltd. v. Canada, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 622, Para 45; CSARS v LG Electronics (428/09) [2010] ZASCA 79 (28 May 2010), Para 25; CSARS v NWK (27/10) [2010] ZASCA 168 (1 December 2010), Para 42 . University of Cape Town 2 1.3 Research Methodology . This dissertation follows a doctrinal research methodology. McKerchar (2008: 18-19) states that.

revenue Flashcards Quizlet

Solution-What principle was established in irc v duke of. The principle in the IRC vs Duke of Westminster 1936 ac 1 is following – The principle was that one person can manage the financial affairs to pay lesser tax. If the person be able to do that, he can never be punished according to taxation laws., xviii Diamlerchrysler India (P.) Limited v DCIT,, (2009) 120 ITJ 803 (Pune ITAT). Dileworth v. Commission of Stamps (1899) AC 99. Dooger and Associates v..

Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Duke of Westminster HL ([1936] AC 1, [1935] All ER 259, (1935) 19 Tax Cas 490, (1935) 104 LJKB 383, Bailii, [1935] UKHL TC_19_490, Bailii, [1935] UKHL 4) The Duke’s gardener was paid weekly, but to reduce tax, his solicitors drew up a deed in which it was said that the earnings were not really wages, but were an annual payment payable by weekly xviii Diamlerchrysler India (P.) Limited v DCIT,, (2009) 120 ITJ 803 (Pune ITAT). Dileworth v. Commission of Stamps (1899) AC 99. Dooger and Associates v.

Westminster City Council v Duke of Westminster was a case between Westminster City Council and the 6th Duke of Westminster (and fellow family trust co-trustees) heard in November 1990. The dispute concerned 532 flats in Page Street, Vincent Street and Regency Street, Pimlico , London . [3] IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1.....10 MacNiven v Westmoreland Investments Ltd [2001] 1 All ER 865.. 56, 73 Mangin v C of IR [1971] NZLR 596

What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? Question 4 (05 marks) Joseph (an accountant) and his wife Jane (a housewife) borrowed money to purchase a rental property as joint tenants. They entered into a written agreement which provided that Joseph is entitled to 20% of the profits from the property and Jane is IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 at 19; Shell Canada Ltd. v. Canada, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 622, Para 45; CSARS v LG Electronics (428/09) [2010] ZASCA 79 (28 May 2010), Para 25; CSARS v NWK (27/10) [2010] ZASCA 168 (1 December 2010), Para 42 . University of Cape Town 2 1.3 Research Methodology . This dissertation follows a doctrinal research methodology. McKerchar (2008: 18-19) states that

IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 case, a scheme whereby the taxpayer covenanted to pay his employee £1 and 18 shillings per week for a period of seven years (regardless of whether he continued to be in the taxpayer’s employ); the employee was legally entitled to a wage of £3 a week but was told that in practice he would only be expected to claim the balance of £1 and 2 shillings; and IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC: 1. (1993) 181 CLR: 359. In Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Peabody the Commissioner identified the scheme in wide terms as comprising ten steps.

Lord Tomlin in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1. 5 “Sham” – US style (no business purpose) “The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted. But the question for determination is whether what was done, apart from the tax motive, was the thing which the statute This is the well-known principle of Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Duke of Westminster [1936] A.C. 1. This is a cardinal principle but it must not be overstated or overextended. While obliging the court to accept documents or transactions, found to be genuine, as such, it does not compel the court to look at a document or a transaction in blinkers, isolated from any context to which it

(1936) This case once defined the approach of the United Kingdom courts in tax cases, viz. that they were confined to applying the words of the statute literally, whether for From: IRC v Duke of Westminster in The New Oxford Companion to Law » Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Duke of Westminster HL ([1936] AC 1, [1935] All ER 259, (1935) 19 Tax Cas 490, (1935) 104 LJKB 383, Bailii, [1935] UKHL TC_19_490, Bailii, [1935] UKHL 4) The Duke’s gardener was paid weekly, but to reduce tax, his solicitors drew up a deed in which it was said that the earnings were not really wages, but were an annual payment payable by weekly

IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1. IRC v Ramsay [1981] STC 174..... Burden and Burden v UK... R v IRC ex parte Preston [1985] AC 835... 10 terms. Dylanagahagan. Revenue. Walmart. exxon. Burkshire Hathaway. Apple. Mcmillion. Woods. Buffett. Cook. Walmart. Mcmillion. exxon . Woods. 43 terms. katie_kennedy31. Revenue. convertibility test • *Hall v Lorimer • Tenant v smith-• • Heaton v Question 4: IRC vs. Duke of Westminster (1936) was a case of tax avoidance. Two terms are frequently used in tax one is tax evasion and other is tax avoidance.

The principle in the IRC vs Duke of Westminster 1936 ac 1 is following – The principle was that one person can manage the financial affairs to pay lesser tax. If the person be able to do that, he can never be punished according to taxation laws. Firstly, the period from 1929 to the late 1960s contains the important cases of Ayrshire Pullman Service (1929), IRC v Duke of Westminster (1936) and the Re Weston’s Settlements (1969) which played a key role in the tax avoidance development. The Ayrshire and the Westminster cases were the first two cases which have the ‘form over substance’ argument was being develop.

” It is clear that conceptually this principle is based on the authority of IRC v. Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 which laid it down that “ every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC: 1. (1993) 181 CLR: 359. In Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Peabody the Commissioner identified the scheme in wide terms as comprising ten steps.

The traditional “form” approach derived from the leading decision IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 requires that the underlying transaction giving rise to the interest, and the interest itself, be characterised according to the legal rights and obligations created evident from the objective intention of the parties. On the other hand, an “economic substance” approach allows for Interestingly, the US Gregory v Helvering and the UK IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1, [1935] All ER Rep 259, HL, cases were decided almost simultaneously on different sides of the Atlantic. Lord Tomlin's statement from Duke of Westminster is oft-quoted: "Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise

Taxpayer’s turnover represented the group’s turnover, the Taxpayer’s contribution to the group profits dropped from 31.19% in 1991/92 to 7.19% in 1995/96. In the famous case of IRC v Duke of Westminster the Court held: “ Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that tax attaching under the appropriate Act is less than it would otherwise be.

What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [ 1936 ] AC 1? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? Question 4 (05 mark s) What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [ 1936 ] AC 1? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? Question 4 (05 mark s)

When to cry'Sham' open.uct.ac.za

irc v duke of westminster 1936 ac 1 pdf

What principle was established in irc v duke of. The new approach did not overrule the Duke of Westminster (1936) discussed above, but it did limit its application. The account set out here is necessarily simplified due to space constraints, Duke of Westminster 1936 AC 1 as follows, typifying the prevalent attitude towards tax avoidance at that time: “Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be..

Analysis The changing limits of acceptable tax avoidance W

irc v duke of westminster 1936 ac 1 pdf

HA3042 Taxation Law Holmes Institute. The Duke of Westminster's case was an often cited case in tax avoidance. The full title and citation was Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Duke of Westminster [1936] A.C. 1; 19 TC 490. The principle in the IRC vs Duke of Westminster 1936 ac 1 was that a person can manage his financial affairs in such a way that he has to pay lesser tax..

irc v duke of westminster 1936 ac 1 pdf


The most often quoted ruling on this subject confirming that tax avoidance is acceptable and legal comes from the court case of IRC v Duke of Westminster (1936). The Duke of Westminster paid his gardener a weekly wage and entered into an agreement by which he stopped paying the wage and instead drew up a covenant agreeing to pay an equivalent amount. What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? Question 4 (05 marks) Joseph (an accountant) and his wife Jane (a housewife) borrowed money to purchase a rental property as joint tenants. They entered into a written agreement which provided that Joseph is entitled to 20% of the profits from the property and Jane is

IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1.....10 MacNiven v Westmoreland Investments Ltd [2001] 1 All ER 865.. 56, 73 Mangin v C of IR [1971] NZLR 596 Johnson Mathely was a parent company- smaller company was a bank. The subsidiary (the bank) got into serious financial difficulties. If the bank went under the parent might go under too.

Question 3 (04 marks) What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? Question 4 (05 marks) Joseph (an accountant) and his wife Jane (a housewife) borrowed money to purchase a rental property as joint tenants. Firstly, the period from 1929 to the late 1960s contains the important cases of Ayrshire Pullman Service (1929), IRC v Duke of Westminster (1936) and the Re Weston’s Settlements (1969) which played a key role in the tax avoidance development. The Ayrshire and the Westminster cases were the first two cases which have the ‘form over substance’ argument was being develop.

The courts also attached importance to the principle established in IRC v Duke of Westminster ([1936] 19 TC 490), in which payments were made by the taxpayer to domestic employees in the form of deeds of covenant, but which in substance were payments of remuneration. The House of Lords refused to disregard the legal character (form) of the deeds merely because the same result (substance) could What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? Question 5 Bill owns a large parcel of land on which there are many tall pine trees. Bill intends to use the land for grazing sheep and therefore wants to have it cleared. He discovers that a logging company is prepared to pay him $1,000 for every 100 metres of timber

Duke of Westminster [1935] All ER 259 (H.L.) with back-up to the case W T Ramsay Ltd v IRC [1981] AC 300 (HL) in order to find any justification on the accuracy of Lord Tomlin’s statement. IRC v. Duke of Westminster [1935] All ER 259 (H.L.) Lord Tomlin in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1. 5 “Sham” – US style (no business purpose) “The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted. But the question for determination is whether what was done, apart from the tax motive, was the thing which the statute

2 IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1. 3 Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed. 4 IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 at 19, per Lord Tomlin. 274 Singapore Academy of Law Journal (2010) 22 SAcLJ worryingly, the introduction of a GAAR has been accompanied by a disturbing problem – the ill-defined line between acceptable tax- avoidance and unacceptable tax-avoidance. Indeed, although the courts in various Question 4: IRC vs. Duke of Westminster (1936) was a case of tax avoidance. Two terms are frequently used in tax one is tax evasion and other is tax avoidance.

Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL ([1981] 1 All ER 865, [1982] AC 300, Bailii, [1981] UKHL 1, [1981] STC 174) The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. This is the well-known principle of Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Duke of Westminster [1936] A.C. 1. This is a cardinal principle but it must not be overstated or overextended. While obliging the court to accept documents or transactions, found to be genuine, as such, it does not compel the court to look at a document or a transaction in blinkers, isolated from any context to which it

Question 3 (04 marks) What principle was established in IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? How relevant is that principle today in Australia? Question 4 (05 marks) Joseph (an accountant) and his wife Jane (a housewife) borrowed money to purchase a rental property as joint tenants. Examples of tax avoidance involve using tax deductions, changing one's business structure through incorporation or establishing an offshore company in a tax haven.2 Lord Tomlin in IRC v Duke of Westminster 3has well said "Every man is entitled to order his affairs so that tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be" ( As the former British Chancellor of the