(1987)1987October24 [LCRIS.J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION ERATOSTEPHANI, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH
- THEMINISTEROFFINANCE,
- THECOMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, Respondents. (CaseNo. 499/85). COSTASSTEPHANI, v - Applicant, THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH
- THEMINISTEROFFINANCE,
- THECOMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, Respondents. (CaseNo. 500/85). Taxation —Capitalgains —The Capital Gains Tax Law52/80, section 5
(2)— Whatcountsfortheallowanceof£l 0,000isthedisposalofadwellinghouse, notthenumberofpersonsholdinganinterestthereon. Construction ofStatutes— TheInterpretationLaw, Cap. 1, section2— Wordsin the singular —Include theplural — Words in theplural —Include the 5 singular. Construction ofStatutes —Clear words — No room for appluing therules of interpretation, whicharemerelypresumptionsincasesofambiguity. By means of this recourse the applicants, who are husband and wife. impugntheassessmentofcapitalgainstaxoneachoneofthemonthecapital 10 1438 3 C.L.R. Stephaniv. Republic profit, which they made from thedisposal ot theirdwelling house, registered in equal undivided shares intheir >iin*names The only issue lh?t was Μ, Όι 'κtermination isone involving thecorrect interpretation otsecnon 5(JJ of LaA* V/SO ".h'chreadsas follows 5 «5
(2)Notaxshall lx> payable where th?gains accruingfrom thedisposal of a dwelling house ased by the owner fur his own habitationfor acontinuous penod of atleast five years andsituateonland notexceeding onedonumdo not exceed tenthousandpounds Provided that - 10 d) where thegains accruing from a disposal exceed tenthousandpounds, taxshall be paid ontheamour texceeding theten thousandpounds, '«) (ml 1θ Therespondentmaintainedtha*theexemptionrefers tothedisposal ofthe whole house and not toeach person having an interest therein and for this reason deducted £5.000 from theprofit of applicant 1and £5,000 from the profit of applicant2 The applicantmaintainedthattherespondentshould have deducted from each applicant'sprofit £10,000 20 ^ Held,drsmtssmgtherecourse
(1)Thewordingofsection5
(2)ofLaw52/80 isclearandunambiguous Itisthedisposal of the dwelling house thatcounts for calculating the allowance of £10,000, and not the number of persons holdinganinteresttherein
(2)Thementionof theword «owner»insection 5
(2), andtheword «every person» inthedefinition ofgain (section2)andtheword «disponer» insection 20 inthesingular numberdoesnotchange theclearmeaningof section5
(2), in this connectionit must always be borne in mind, that our Interpretation Law, Cap 1provides insection 2 thereof that«wordsinthesingular include theplural,words intheplural includethesingular» 30 Recoursesdismissed Noorderas tocosts Casesreferredto Croxfordv UniversalInsuranceCo (1936J2KB 253, 1439 Stephanlv.Republic
(1987)Komodromos & Others ν Registrar of Trade Unions
(1983)3 C.L.R. 495. Recourses. Recourses against the assessments of capital gains tax on each of the applicants in respect of capital profit derived by themfrom 5 the disposal of 1/2 share each in ahouse atNicosia. P.Polyviou, for the applicants. Y.Lazarou, for the respondents. Cur. adv.vult. LORIS J. read the following judgment. Both applicants in the 10 above intituled recourses, (which were heard together on the application of all sides as presenting an identical legal issue) impugn theassessment of capitalgains taxoneach oneof themin respect of the capital profit which the respondent Commissioner alleges that the applicants have derived from the disposal of 1/2 15 share each inahouseatNicosia(Trypiotisquarter)covered by plot 523 of Sheet/Plan XXI/52.2.IV, registered by virtue of Registration No. B606 in the name of both applicants who are husband and wife. Initially both recourses presented two issues: a factual issue 20 relating to the valuation of the property concerned and a legal issuerevolvingon theinterpretationof s. 5
(2)of theCapitalGains fax Law of 1980 (Law No. 52/80). As regards the factual issue the parties came to agree thatthe true valuation of the property concernedwas atthe material time 25 £58,000, and theirsaid agreement was declared before me atthe clarification stage on the6thNovember, 1986. Therefore, therenowfallsfor determinationthelegalissueonly, which as already stated above revolves on the interpretation of s. 5
(2)of Law No. 52/80. 30 Before proceeding toexaminethisissueitisuseful toreproduce hereinbelow, verbatim, the relevant part of the sub-section in question: «5
(2)Ουδείς φ ό ρ ο ς καταβάλλεταιοσάκις το κέρδος 35 το οττοίον προκύπτει εκ της διαθέσεως μιας κατοικίας χρησιμοποιούμενης υ π ότου ιδιοκτήτουτουλάχιστον δια συνολικήν περίοδον πέντε ετών δια σκοπούς 1440 3C.L.R. StephanI v. Republic LorisJ. ιδιοκατοικησεως και κειμένης επ· εκτάσεως γης μέχρι μιας σκάλας δεν υπερβαίνε ΓΟ ποσόν των δέκα χιλιάδων λιρών: Νοείται ότι5 (ι)ειςπερίπτωσινκαθ' ηντο εκτηςδιαθέσεωςκέρδος υπερβαίνει το ποσόν των δέκα χιλιάδων λιρών θα καταβάλληται φόρος επί του π ο σ ο ύ του υπερβαίνοντος τας δέκαχιλιάδας λίρας (Π) 10 (ιιι) » (English translation: 15 «5
(2)Notaxshall be payable where thegains accruing from thedisposal ofadwellinghouse usedby theowner forhisown habitation for a continuous period of at least five years and situate on land notexceeding one donumdo notexceed ten thousand pounds: Provided that (i)where the gains accruing from adisposal exceeding the ten thousand pounds; 20 (ii) (Hi) , » As stated earlier in the present judgment the property in question was owned by both applicants inthe recourse,jointly in an undivided share of 1/2 each. 25 The respondent obviously holding the view that the «gains accruing from the disposal of adwellinghouse» should be heldto mean that the relevant exemption from taxation is allowed in respect of the disposal of the house as a whole rather, than in respect of each person having an interest therein, allowed an 30 exemption of £5,000 to each of theapplicants. It was maintained by learned counsel appearing for both applicants thatsuch acalculation of theallowance was contraryto the provisions of s. 5
(2)of Law 52/80. He argued forcefully that section 5
(2)should be construed as denoting thaton the disposal 35 of a dwelling house which is jointly owned, each joint owner is entitledtothe£10,000 exemption, separately. 1441 LorisJ. Stephanlv. Republic
(1987)Learned counsel for applicants submitted that the aforesaid interpretation is supported by the literal meaning of the words used ins. 5
(2)astaken intheirtextaswellasbytheoverall context of the law. Hemaintainedthatthedefinition ofgain insection 2of thelaw*and theuse ofthesingular numberins.20** inrespectof 5 thedisponerofproperty,lendsupporttohisaforesaid submission. Learned counsel for respondents maintained that the Ccmmissionerapplied correctlythelaw tothefacts ofthiscase;he submitted that according to s. 5
(2)of the Law, for any house disposed of, themaximum exemption is £10,000 irrespective of 10 thenumberofowners whohave disposed oftheirinteresttherein, as the section in question is not concerned with disposal of interests ina dwelling house butwith the disposal ofthe dwelling house itself. Ihave carefully considered the provisions ofs.5
(2)ofLaw 52/ 15 80 bearing in mind arguments byboth sides. I hold the view that the wording of s. 5
(2)is clear and unambiguous; and «where the words ofan ActofParliamentare clear, thereis no room forapplying anyof the principles of interpretation, 20 which aremerely presumptions incases of ambiguity in the Statute.» (perScottL.J. Groxford v. UniversalInsurance Co., [1936J2K.B. 253atp. 281-vide also tfomoaromos &Others v.Registrarof Trade Unions
(1983)3 C.L.R.495atp. 507). Theirliteral meaning isclear: Notax shall bepayable where the 25 gains accruing from the disposal ofadwelling house (used bythe owner etc.) donot exceed ten thousand pounds. Inother words upon thesale of a dwelling house andwhere the gains accruing from such atransactiondonotexceed £10,000, no taxis payable. Itisthe disposal of the dwelling house thatcounts forcalculating 30 * Cam means thegam of everyperson which accmes afterthecoming intooperationofthis Law by reasonof thedisposalofpropertyandwhichisnot profitwithin themeaningof the Income TaxLawsforthetimebeing inforce **'The disponer of ownership should paythe taxatthetimeof thedisposalof immovable property* * *Κέρδος» σημαίνει το κέρδος παντός -προσώπου το οποίον προκύπτει μετά την ημερομηνίαν της ενάρξεως της ισχύος του παρόντος Νόμου λόγω διαθέσεως ιδιοκτησίας και τοοποίον δεναποτελεί κέρδος εμπίπτον εντός των διατάξεων των εκάστοτε εν ισχύι περί Φορολογίας του Εισοδήματος Νόμων. " Ο διαθέτης ιδιοκτησίας υποχρεούται να καταβολή τον φόρον κατά τον χρόνον της διαθέσεως τηςακινήτου ιδιοκτησίας....' 1442 3 CX.R. Stephen!v. Republic Loris J. the allowance of £10,000 and notthe number of owners holding the house in undivided shares. Thementionof theword «owner inth;ssub section aswellasof the word «every person» (παντός προσώπου) in the definition 5 of gain (section 2) of the word disponer in section 20 in the singular numbercannotaltertheclear andunambiguous words of section 5
(2)of theLaw; inthisconnectionitmustalwaysbe bome in mind,thatour InterpretationLaw Cap. 1 provides in section 2 thereof that«wordsinthesingular includetheplural,andwordsin 10 theplural includethe singular.» For the above reasons 1hold the view that the respondent Commissionerapplied correctlytheLawtothefacts of thepresent cases. Inthe result both recourses are doomed tofailure andthey are 15 accordingly dismissed; inthecircumstances therewillbe noorder as to costs. Recoursesdismissed. No orderas to costs. 1443