TMI Blog1940 (5) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules and appear to me to mean for the purpose of enabling a person to carry on and earn profits in the trade . The disbursements in question were not wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the respondent's trade. The principle stated by Lord Davey was applied in the case of Union Cold Storage Co. v. Jones, [1924] 8 Tax Cas. 725 where a similar question arose out of a disbursement made in respect of fire insurance premiums. When the respondent sublet the premises in question for a period as long as twenty-eight years they ceased to be available for any purpose of his trade. [Counsel referred to the cases of Cowcher v. Mills Co. [1927] 13 Tax Cas. 216 and Union Cold Storage Co. v. Simpson [1938] 22 Tax Cas. 547]. F. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Cas. 625 the point has been raised as to whether the tax- payer was entitled to deduct the sum of money which he had to pay pursuant to an obligation which he had entered into for the purposes of his trade. The respondent took the assignment of the lease of premises at 50 Oxford Street for the purpose of carrying on his trade there, and by that assignment the whole residue of the term became vested in him and he became liable to pay the rent at the rate of 3,500 per annum to the St. Edmunds Properties, Ltd., for the residue of the term. I ventured to put the question to counsel who represented the Inland Revenue whether, if the respondent had left the premises vacant for the rest of the term of the lease, and had made no use of them but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a lease of a warehouse at Bristol for the purposes of their business. The lease was for a term of ten years with an option to terminate it at the end of five years. After occupying the warehouse for the purposes of their business for a little over two years the company ceased to carry on any part of their business there and sub-let certain portions of the premises but not the whole of them. The Lord President said (17 Tax Cas., at p. 630): After a number of years they (the company) discovered, contrary to their expectations, that they no longer had need of it (the warehouse at Bristol), and it remained empty and on their hands. In these circumstances I have no doubt that the rent which they continued bound to pay until the termination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the leased premises has been granted for the full period of the lease, less five days. Do those facts, differentiating this case from Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Falkirk Iron Co., [1933] 17 Tax Cas. 625 make any difference to the conclusion that ought to be drawn? I do not see on what ground it can be held that, if the lease has only three years to run, the rent continues to be a deductible expense, but if it has twenty-eight years to run it cannot be deducted at all. If it was an expense of the trade during the first year or two after the business was no longer carried on at the premises, how would it cease to be an expense of the trade during the later years? So, also, I do not see how the fact that the respondent has got rid of al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
