Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1967 (3) TMI 114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Brothers (Glossop) Ltd., of which company the appellant was a subsidiary. The payments made by the appellant, commonly known as subvention payments, were in respect of deficits of Wood Brothers (Glossop) Ltd., and it was common ground that the appellant was not entitled to make such deductions unless it was authorised to do so by section 20 of the Finance Act, 1953. Accordingly, the question turned on the construction of that section, and its application to the facts of the case, including, in particular, the fact that at the dates when the payments were made Wood Brothers (Glossop) Ltd. had ceased to carry on its trade. The case stated by the special commissioners was in the following terms : At a meeting of the special commissioners held on October 16, 17 and 31 and on November 1, 1963, Davies Jenkins Co. Ltd., hereafter called the company, appealed against assessments to income tax made upon it under Case I of Schedule D for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61 in the sums of 5,000 and 20,000 respectively. The sole question for the decision of the special commissioners was whether certain payments made by the company under a subvention agreement were in the ci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mpany within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 20; and that the subvention payments should therefore be treated as trading expenses of the company. It was contended on behalf of the Crown that subsection (1) of section 20 of the Finance Act, 1953, dealt with the position where a company received a subvention payment from an associated company; that subsection (10) set out the conditions which, for the purposes of the whole of section 20, must be satisfied before a company making a subvention payment to another could be treated as the other's associated company, namely, if, but only if, at all times between the beginning of the payee company's accounting period in respect of which the payment is made and the making of the payment one of them is the subsidiary of the other . . . . . . that subsection (9), however, provides that for the purposes of the whole of section 20 references to a company shall be taken to apply only to a company resident in the United Kingdom and carrying on a trade wholly or partly in the United Kingdom, and the word company as defined in that subsection therefore governed the meaning of the word company in su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n should be allowed as deductions under subsection (1) as if they were trading expenses of the company. But the Crown seeks to import the description of ' company ' in subsection (9) into subsection (10), contending that since Wood Brothers Glossop was not trading when the payments were received it was not a company 'at all times . . . ' within the meaning of subsection (10). We reject this contention. We have already said that in our view it is subsection (10) which governs the question of association for the purposes of subsection (1), and we think we are supported in this view by a consideration of paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1954, and section 18 of that Act. It seems to us implicit in this legislation that a subvention payment made to a payee company after cessation qualified under sub- section (1) of section 20 of the Finance Act, 1953. In particular, paragraph 3 of the above-mentioned Schedule would seem to have little, if any, content if this is not so. We do not think this 1954 legislation is based on a mistaken view of section 20 of the Act of 1953. The payments in question should be allowed as de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sidiary companies each of which runs a hotel. One of the hotels is gutted by fire. How, it may be asked, is it possible for such a contingency to be taken into account for the purposes of section 20 ? The Crown's argument involves the admission that Parliament has failed to provide the machinery to effect its intentions. 3. It is an irresistible inference that Parliament in 1953 intended that a subvention payment should be available and effective for a final accounting period. The function of the courts in relation to a statutory provision is to ascertain and implement the intention of the legislature. Normally that intention is ascertainable by a strict construction of the language of the statute and where this is done and it leads to anomalies nevertheless the intention so arrived at ought to prevail but it is wrong to attribute literal inerrancy to every word and every phrase of the provisions of a statute and where a statutory provision read in its entirety clearly manifests a general intention that general intention should not be overruled by a too exact construction of the statutory language : see Astor v. Perry [1935] A. C. 398, 416, 417; 51 T. L. R. 325; 19 T. C. 255 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... defeat any claim for relief in circumstances where one subsidiary makes a subvention payment to another subsidiary and before such payment the parent company ceases to carry on trade. This would seem to create an extraordinary anomaly on the Crown's construction of the section. (3) Reliance is placed on the conclusion of the special commissioners in the case stated Ante, p. 449 that it is sub-section (10) which governs the question of association for the purposes of subsection (1), and that this is supported, inter alia, by section 18 of the Finance Act, 1954. As to when guidance can be sought on a question of statutory construction from the provisions of a subsequent enactment : see Kirkness v. John Hudson Co. Ltd., [1955] A. C. 696, 710-713; [1955] 2 W. L. R. 1135; [1955] 2 All E. R. 345; 36 T. C. 28, H. L. per Viscount Simonds, where the authorities are reviewed. The court is entitled to look at a subsequent Act on the same subject in construing an earlier Act which contains a provision open to divers meanings in order to help resolve such ambiguity. Sir George Honeyman, Q. C. J. Raymond Philips and J. P. Warner for the respondent. As a consequence of the decision i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion contained in subsection (9) has been applied to it, and so construed it is plain on the facts here that, at the dates of the payments made by the appellant to Wood Brothers (Glossop) Ltd., that company was not a company as defined in subsection (9) (for it had ceased to trade) and accordingly the appellant could not have been an associated company of it. J. Raymond Philips following. As to the construction of section 20(1) of the Finance Act, 1953, it is essential that it should be construed grammatically. The two vital words of the subsection are where . . . then. A company does not become designated and identified until it has satisfied all the conditions specified between the words where . . . then. It is to be noted that the subject of receives is a company as described in subsection (9). The fallacy in the appellant's argument can be shown by the fact that if the definition of company in subsection (9) had been that it meant a private company and this definition had been read into sub- section (1) it could not be said that a company which had become a public company could claim the benefit of the section. The only possible subject of and rec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e taken into account in computing profits or gains or losses of either company or on which (apart from [the] section and from any relief from tax) the payee company would be liable to bear tax by deduction or otherwise... The payments made by the appellant company were made pursuant to such an agreement and were not payments which apart from the section would be taken into account in computing profits or losses or on which the payee company would be liable to bear tax by deduction or otherwise. Sub-section (1) of section 20 reads as follows: Subject to the provisions of this section, where a company has a deficit for tax purposes during any accounting period of the company, and receives a subvention payment in respect of that period from an associated company having a surplus for tax purposes in the corresponding period, then in computing for the purposes of income tax the profits or gains or losses of those companies the payment shall be treated as a trading receipt receivable by the one company on the last day of the accounting period during which it has the deficit, and shall be allowed as a deduction to the other company as if it were a trading expense incurred on t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e section only applies if at the actual date of payment the company which receives it is carrying on a trade. There appears to be no good reason for so restricting the application of the section. There revenue was not able to suggest one, but they contended that, on its true construction, the section had that effect. They concede that Parliament, when section 18 of and paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1954, were enacted, proceeded upon the basis that the provisions of section 20 did not cease to apply if the company which received the payment had at the time of receipt ceased to trade, but they rightly say that the content of subsequent legislation affords no reliable guide to the interpretation of an earlier statute as Parliament may have proceeded upon an erroneous view on the law: see Kirkness v. John Hudson Co. Ltd [1955] A.C. 696; [1955] 2 W.L.R. 1135; [1955] 2 All E.R. 345; 36 T.C. 28 H.L. It is, however, inconceivable that the Government of the day would have introduced a Finance Bill containing what are now section 18 of and paragraphs 3 and 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1954, if the revenue had not at the time held the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch it is to apply. That is done by sub-section (9). But there is no reason why companies which qualify for the benefits given by the section should be deprived of them if the company receiving the payment has at the time of its receipt ceased to trade. Each of the sub-sections (9) and (10) begin with the words For the purposes of this section and the revenue therefore contends that sub- section (9) must be applied to sub-section (10). That contention appears to me to depend on the fact that the contents of the two sub-sections were not included in one sub-section or indeed in a separate section of the Act. If, for instance, instead of there being two sub-sections there bad been one commencing with the words For the purposes of the section containing two paragraphs, (a) and (b), and (a) contained what is now in sub-section (9) and (b) what is in sub-section (10), it would not be right as a matter of construction to interpret the contents of (b) in the light of the contents of (a) and it would, in my opinion, be clear that (a) and (b) were each intended to apply to the other sub-sections of the section, which one might call the operative part. Similarly, if the contents of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A has received a subvention payment from an associated trading company. One is not, in my opinion, required to consider whether company A was carrying on a trade when it received the payment. If it had been intended that this should be done, then one would have expected that to have been made clear, either by the insertion of the words the company before receives or in some other way. In my opinion Harman L.J. was right in rejecting the revenue's contentions and the section should be held to have the meaning the revenue originally thought it had and which Parliament attached to it when the Finance Act, 1954, was passed. I would therefore allow the appeal. LORD MACDERMOTT. My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading the opinions prepared by my noble and learned friends Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and Lord Upjohn. I agree with their conclusion that this appeal should be allowed and with their reasoning for that conclusion and their description of the material circumstances. I do not, therefore, propose to burden your Lordships with any detailed exposition of the relevant facts and enactments, and only wish to add some observation of my own on the main issue b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... b-section (9) that it was intended to bear. It is a form of definition that must be applied with caution, for it involves characteristics of qualifications which may not be constant, and it relates to a situation which, however sub-section (1) may be read, is bound to develop over, and can only be completed after, the lapse of an appreciable period of time. But, in my opinion, two things at least are reasonably clear. In the first place, if section 20 is read as a whole it is evident that sub-section (9) cannot be interpreted as requiring that, in every instance where the word company is used or referred to, the reference must be to a resident trading company. The proviso to sub-section (9) furnishes one example of this, as Stamp J [1966] 1 W.L.R. 446, 455; [1966] 1 All E.R. 716. has already observed; and another may, I think, be found in that part of sub-section (1) which comes after the conditions for relief have been stated and provides that then in computing...... the profits or gains or losses of those companies........ the payment shall be treated as a trading receipt and a trading expense of the payee and paying companies respectively, A company might well cease tradin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n is that for which the appellant company has argued. To my mind, it is the view to be preferred on the terms of the statute and, beyond that, it is the view best calculated to give effect to the policy of section 20. That policy has been described by Harman L.J. in the Court of Appeal and by my noble and learned friends in the opinions to which I have already referred and I need not describe it again. It is not in dispute and is readily conveyed to the informed mind by the terms of the section. Suffice it to say that the appellant company's contention accords entirely with the intendment of the section, whereas that of the Crown would mean, in effect, that relief thereunder could not be granted in respect of a deficit incurred in a company's last accounting period-an anomalous result for which no explanation was forthcoming. The Crown also based an argument on sub-section (10), but as it cannot prevail if that based on sub-section (9) fails, I need say no more about it, except to add that I share the view favoured by those of your Lordships who consider that sub-sections (9) and (10) are independent of each other and should be read and applied accordingly. For these .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... circumstances a subvention payment will be made after the end of the accounting period of the receiving company. It will be made to such company after it is ascertained that it has a deficit for tax purposes. This will only be ascertained after the end of the accounting period. A payment will be made by the paying company after it is ascertained that it has a surplus for tax purposes. In computing for the purposes of income tax the profits or gains or losses of the respective companies a payment is treated as a trading receipt receivable by the receiving company on the last day of the accounting period during which it has the deficit and is to be allowed as a deduction to the other company as if it were a trading expense incurred on that day (see subs. (1)). It would seem to follow that from a practical point of view the actual date of the subvention payment is of no materiality save that regard must be had to the proviso to sub-section (2), which lays it down that a payment in respect of any accounting period of the payee company is not to be treated as a subvention payment unless made in or before the second year of assessment following that in which the period ends. There .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gdom has a deficit for tax purposes during an accounting period and receives a subvention payment in respect of that period from a company resident in the United Kingdom and carrying on a trade wholly or partly in the United Kingdom and if at all times between the beginning of the payee company's accounting period in respect of which the payment is made and the making of the payment, one of them is a subsidiary (within the meaning of section 42 of the Finance Act, 1938) of the other, then the payment is to be treated as a trading receipt receivable by the one company on the last day of the accounting period during which it has the deficit and is to be allowed as a deduction to the other company as if it were a trading expense incurred on that day. I see no reason why the words and receive should not be read perfectly naturally and literally. The section does not stipulate that there must be receipt at some particular time. It would be surprising if it did. The time of receipt is unimportant save that there is a late date limit as laid down by the proviso to sub-section (2). I see no need to read in or to insert words so as to require that receipt must be before a company h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arate independent qualifications and that sub-section (9) should not be infused into sub-section (10). If, however, sub-section (9) is to be applied to sub-section (10), then I think that in that event what is being provided for as between the two companies is as follows. One of them that was resident in and carrying on trade in the United Kingdom during an accounting period will have had a deficit for tax purposes during the accounting period. The other that also was resident in and carrying on trade in the United Kingdom during the corresponding period will have had a surplus for tax purposes in the corresponding period. There having been a subvention agreement between them, the latter company at some stage will make a payment pursuant to the agreement to the former. The paying company will be treated as the other's associated company for the purposes of sub-section (1) provided that one continues to be the subsidiary of the other down to the time of payment. Subject to that, the date of making the payment is immaterial. The word making in the phrase a company making a subvention payment to another denotes no more than that as between one company that could be describ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ith the approach of Harman L.J., I would allow the appeal. LORD GUEST. My Lords, I have the misfortune to differ from the rest of your Lordships, and, although I regard this case as a difficult one of statutory construction, I can express my views quite shortly. The short question, by no means easy of answer, is: Whether in order to obtain the benefit of what has been described as the subvention procedure available to associated companies under section 20 of the Finance Act, 1953, it is necessary that the company receiving the subvention payment should be resident and trading in the United Kingdom at the date when the subvention payment is received. It must obviously be trading during the chargeable accounting period when the deficit occurs and it is agreed that the company making the payment and the company receiving the payment must be associated within the meaning of sub-section (10) of section 20 from the beginning of the payee company's accounting period to the date of making the payment, but the recipient company, it is argued, need not be resident and trading when the payment is received. There are 13 sub-sections to section 20 of the Finance Act, 1953, but it is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly, the company must receive a subvention payment from an associated company within the meaning of sub-section (10). If these conditions are satisfied, then, and only then, do the results follow. The Crown contend that in interpreting sub-section (1) to give effect to the importation of the definition of company in sub-section (9), the grammatical construction of sub-section (1) requires that, in order to qualify, the company must be resident and trading not only during the accounting period, but that it must also be resident and trading when the subvention payment is received. The company in question, the Crown says, cannot to receive a subvention payment under sub-section (1) unless it is a company within sub-section (9). The appellants would read sub-section (1) so that the company in question, having qualified as a resident and trading company when the deficit is incurred under the first limb of the section, becomes a designated company, as it is called, for the rest of the subvention procedure and, having so qualified, it matters not that it had ceased to be resident and to trade when the subvention payment is received. I cannot so read the sub-section. This interpre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r. However this may be, I cannot see that there is any ambiguity in the words of section 20 or that if they are interpreted according to their natural and grammatical meaning they can lead to any other result than that for which the Revenue contends. There is no room, in my view, for what would amount, in my view, to judicial legislation. I find the judgment of Stamp J. entirely satisfactory and I would dismiss the appeal. LORD UPJOHN. My Lords, this appeal is concerned with a very short point of construction on section 20 of the Finance Act, 1953. This section was introduced in 1953 to meet the development by the commercial community of the use of subsidiary and associated companies to carry out large enterprises, usually under the umbrella of a parent company controlling the group. The practice had long grown up whereby if one subsidiary or associated company made a loss and another a profit, agreements were made within the group for a profitable subsidiary to make a subvention payment to a less successful subsidiary making a loss in any trading year. This was obviously a fair and sensible practice, but the Income Tax Acts made no provision for bringing subvention paym .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uestion is to be determined. While it is a long and involved section with many sub-sections, it is agreed that, as Stamp J. said, sub-section (1) is the enacting part of the section. This sub-section, however, must be construed in the light of the all-important sub-sections (9) and (10). So I need set out little more than these sub-sections: 20.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a company has a deficit for tax purposes during any accounting period of the company, and receives a subvention payment in respect of that period from an associated company having a surplus for tax purposes in the corresponding period, then in computing for the purposes of income tax the profits or gains or losses of those companies the payment shall be treated as a trading receipt receivable by the one company on the last day of the accounting period during which it has the deficit, and shall be allowed as a deduction to the other company as if it were a trading expense incurred on that day. (2)...Provided that a payment in respect of any accounting period of the payee company shall not be treated as a subvention payment unless made in or before the year of assessment following .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se arguments in principle, reached the same conclusion by a slightly different route, which I shall examine later. The Crown's argument is that you must fasten upon the definition of company in sub-section (9) and so that in the enacting sub-section (1) where the word company first occurs you must read it as a company resident in the United Kingdom and carrying on a trade wholly or partly in the United Kingdom, which qualification for brevity in argument was referred to as a resident trading company, a phrase which, for the like reason, I shall adopt. So far this proposition could not be disputed. The argument then proceeds that where the word company follows during any accounting period of the company you must again read in the words of the definition and so reading on and receives you must find that to quality for the benefit the company must be a resident trading company which receives-i.e., a company which at the moment of receipt is a resident trading company. Stamp J. expressed this point of view very clearly when he said [1966] 1 W.L.R. 446, 454C-D : Sub-section (9) requires one to 'take' (note the words 'shall be taken') the reference .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... do so in sub- section (9); I would suppose because it thought that consideration to be irrelevant when construing sub-section (1), as indeed it does to me. So I fail to understand why Stamp J. placed such emphasis on the time of payment. But apart from this consideration, it seems to me that, assuming sub- section (9) to be in truth a definition section, a matter to which I shall return, it is quite a wrong method of construction slavishly to read in the definition whenever and wherever the word so defined occurs. Regard must be had to the context. The company in section 20(1), where it first occurs, is plainly defined as a resident trading company. Having been so defined, as a matter of construction of that sub-section it is perfectly plain that where the word secondly occurs the word company refers back to the company already defined, i.e., it must be read as that company, and to introduce again the words of the definition is a misuse of language. The construction of the sub-section seems to me plain. It should be read and construed in this way: ...where a resident trading company has a deficit for tax purposes during any accounting period of that company and it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and, in my view, it was intended as no more than a qualification section. It merely defines those companies who are qualified to obtain the benefits of sub-section (1). This consideration is an additional or, indeed, independent ground for disposing of the Crown's claim, in their main argument. To my mind, also, sub-sections (9) and 10 are quite independent of each other and cannot be read as a whole so as to produce the result already mentioned and accepted by Stamp J. Sub-section (9) sets out the qualifications which companies within a group must satisfy to claim the benefit of the section. Sub-section (10) is dealing and dealing only with the question whether companies are associated or subsidiary. For the first and only relevant time, apart from the proviso to sub-section (2), sub-section (10) rightly brings in the element of the importance of the time of payment. If at the moment of payment the payer company is no longer within the group or family there is no reason why it should be entitled to the benefit of the section. So I pose to myself the question posed by Stamp J. I answer it by saying that for the reasons I have already stated I cannot see any relevance in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates