← Κύπρος

clr/1988/1988_3_1640.pdf

(1988)1988August29 [SAWTOES,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION ETERIAMETAPHORONAYIANAPA(EMAN)LTD., Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THECOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX, 2.THEMINISTRYOFFINANCE, Respondents. (CaseNo.268/86). Taxation—Income Tax-Deductible expenses—TheIncome TaxLaws, 1961· 1981,sections11
(1),13(e)and(f)—Damagespaidtothirdpartiesfordamagestothe latters'vehiclescausedbytheapplicants'vehicles—Applicants engaged inthetransport business—Whether thesaidexpenses incurred whollyandexclusivelyintheproductionofincome—Question determined inthenegative—Therefore, theywerenotdeductible. 5 Taxation—Income Tax—Deductibleexpenses—TheIncome TaxLaws, 19611981,sections11
(1)and13(e)and(f)—Paymentbyapplicants,who were engagedinpublictransport,for acquiringa T " licence—Notanexpense whollyandexclusivelyincurredintheproductionofincome—Therefore, notdeductible. 10 Taxation—Income Tax—Deductible expenses—TheIncome TaxLaws 19611981,sections 11
(1)and13(e)and(f)—Expenseswhollyandexclusively incurredintheproductionofincome—Reviewofauthorities. Thefacts of thiscase,aswellasthepiinciplesevolvedtherefrom, are sufficiently indicatedbythehereinaboveheadnotes. Recourse dismissed with£100.-costsin favourofrespondents. 1640 ,c 3 C.L.R. EMAN Ltd.v.Republic ., Casesreferredto: / TheManufacturersLifeInsuranceCo:v. TheRepublic
(1961)3 C.L.R. ·, \ 4 6 0 ; i ., • • _ / . ' : StrongandCompanyofRomseyLtd.v. Woodifield, 5Tax Cases
  1. 5 Recourse. · < s • Recourse against theincometax assessments forthe.years of assessment 1981 and1982 and against the special contribution assessments for thequarters 1.1.81-31.12.82 raised on appli­ cants. ^ · . · • . ! ·.n-z. -.·.: : •» 10 A.Panayiotou, fortheapplicants. Y. Lazarou,fortherespondents. , - y . ;_ , Cur. adv.vult. 15 SAVVIDES J. read thefollowing judgment.-The present re­ courseisdirected against applicant'sincometax assessments for theyearofassessment 1981 and 1982 andalsoagainst the special 'contribution assessments for thequarters 1/81 to4/82 which were raised anddeterminedasshown inAppendixes "A".and,"B" at­ tachedtotheOpposition '• • j > ' · Theapplicantis aprivatelimitedcompanyengaged intransport
  2. a°ditsincomeatall materialtimestothepresentrecoursewasde­ rived from thetransportofpassengers andgoods. Theapplicant company submitted audited accountsfortheyear ended31.1.82 on 6.-11.82 through Mr.T.Qiristofides,. Certified Accountant, andfortheyear ended31._1.83 on30.5.84throughMr.E.Kalle25 nos. CharteredAccountant. ι *' The accountsof the company forthe year ended 31.1.80 to 31.12.83were examined andthecompany's auditorwas request­ edby the.respondentCommissionerofIncomeTaxby letterdated 1641 SawidesJ. EMAN Ltdv.Republic
(1988)2nd February, 1985 toproduce certain additional information. This information was supplied on the 29th April, 1985.Onthe basisoftheexaminationofthecompany'saccountsandtheadditional information received for theyearsof assessment 1979to 1983,assessmentswereraisedandsenttotheapplicantcompany 5 onthe3rdOctober,
  1. Thecompany'sauditorbyletterdated21stOctober, 1985 accepted theincometax and specialcontribution computationsas adjusted bytherespondent subject tothefollowing twomatters statedtherein: 10 (i)Yearofassessment 1981(Yearended31.1.82) Anobjection wasraised inthisrespect against anamountof £2,145.-claimedas"compensationpaidtovariouscarownersre accidentscausedbythecompany'svehicleswhichwerenotcovered byinsurance",which wasrejectedbytheCommissionerof 15 IncomeTax. (ii)Yearofassessment 1982(Yearended31.1.83) Anobjection wasraisedagainstthedeductionfromtheincome of an amount of £9,000.- beingthealleged cost of purchaseof "T"licences,whichwasalsorejected bytherespondent 20 Theobjectioncontainedintheaboveletteroftheapplicantwas rejected by therespondent whobyletterdated 18thNovember, 1985,informed theapplicant thatthetwoaforementioned items could notbeallowedforincometaxpurposesforthereasonthat (a)compensationpaidtothirdpersonsfordamagecausedarenot 25 expenses wholly andexclusively incurred for theacquisitionof incomeand,as such,they werenotdeductible; (b)any amount paid for thepurchaseof "T" licencesisnot allowed by lawand thatin anyeventsuchexpenditurecouldnotbeconsideredasan expenditurefortheacquisitionofincome. 30 Theapplicant'sauditorrepliedtotherespondentbyletterdated 1642 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 .EMANLtd.v. Republic SawidesJ. 5th December, 1985,expressing his disagreement to the disal­ lowanceof theseconditemmentionedintheletterof therespon­ dentdated 18thNovember,,1985, thatis.concerning.theallowa­ bility of the.expenditure incurred for purchasing "T" licences without mentioninganything concerning thefirstitem contained insuchletter,thatis,thecompensationpayments tothirdparties. TherespondentCommissionerof IncomeTax,havingconsid­ eredtheobjection filed onbehalf,of theapplicantandbearing in mindall subsequent documentssubmitted by theapplicant's audi: tors,maintainedhisoriginal decision anddeterminedthe objec­ tion accordingly andinformed theapplicantof hisdecision bylet­ terdated22ndFebruary, 1986.As aresult,theapplicantfiledthe presentrecoursechallenging thesubjudice decision. Thesolequestion whichposes for considerationis whetherthe two items claimed by theapplicant,inparticular,theamountof £2,145.-paidascompensationtothirdpartiesfordamage caused totheircars by theCompany's.vehicles which werenotcovered by insurance, andthe amountof £9,000.- alleged to have been paidforthepurchaseof Τ licencesaredeductible expenses. 20 Counsel for the applicant submitted that the two aforesaid items aredeductible as they areexpenses incurredin the proper carrying outof thebusiness,ofthecompany andthattherespon­ dent,inrefusing todeductthem,actedarbitrarily andwithoutany legalorreasonablejustification., , 25 Counselfor therespondents,ontheother.hand,submitted.that suchclaimwas notdeductibleunder,theprovisions of sections11, and 13 of theIncomeTaxLaws 1961-1981 inthat, for ittobede­ ductible(a) itmustberevenueandnotcapitalexpenditure;(b) the expenditure was notincurredwhollydndexclusively for thepurposeof acquiring theincome. ' ' 30 . The;legal provisions relevant totheissuesunderconsideration. are contained.in sections 11 and 13 of the IncomeTax Laws 1961-
  2. Section 11
(1)deals with allowabledeductions and 1643 SawidesJ. EMANLtd.v.Republic
(1988)provides,interalia,thatinascertainingthechargeableincomeof any person there shall bededucted alloutgoings andexpenses whollyandexclusivelyincurredintheproductionoftheincome. This section, however, shouldbereadinconjunction with s.13 whichexpresslyprohibitscertaindeductions.Inparticular,para- 5 graph (e)tothissectionprovidesthattobedeductible,theexpendituremustbemoneywhollyandexclusivelysetoutorexpended for thepurposesof acquiring theincomeandparagraph (f)providesthatnodeductionshallbemadeonanycapitalwithdrawnor anysumemployedorintendedtotheemployedascapital. 10 Theexpression "forthepurposesofacquiringtheincome"has beenconsideredinthecaseofTheManufacturersLifeInsurance Co. v. TheRepublic
(1967)3C.L.R.460,in whichLoizou,J., after making reference to the caseof Strong and Company of RomseyLtd. v.Woodifield, 5TaxCases215,saidthefollowing 15 atp. 471: "Itclearly appearsfromtheabovecasesthatforapayment toqualify asadeductibleexpensefor incometaxpurposesit mustbeapaymentconnectedwiththetradeorbusinesscarried onandmadeinordertoenablethetax-payerthebettertocarry 20 onhistradeorbusinessforthepurposeofearningtheincome, whetherbygettingridofonerousserviceagreementsorforthe purposeofmaintainingahighstandardofbusiness." andconcluded bytreatingpaymentseffected bytheapplicant companyinthatcasetoagentsforthepurposeofcarryingonand 25 acquiringincomeinitsbusinessaspaymentswhichhadnotbeen made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of enabling the companytocarryonitsbusinessandearnincome. In Strongand Companyof Romesy Ltd. v. Woodifield (supra), towhichreference wasmadeintheabovedecision,itwas 30 held that damages and costs incurred by a brewing company, which also owned houses and carried on the business of innkeepers,onaccountofinjuriescausedtoagueststayingatoneof theirhousesbythefalling inofachimneywerenotdeductible 1644 3 C.L.R. EMAN Ltd.v.Republic Sawides J. for incometax purposes as they were notexpenses which were madefor the purposeofearningthe profits. LordDavey,indeli­ veringhis judgment,said the following,atp. 220: "It is not enough that the disbursement is made in the courseof, or arises outof, oris connectedwith,thetrade, or is madeoutof the profits of the trade.Itmustbemadeforthe purposeof earningthe profits." 5 10 On the basisof the materialbefore me and bearinginmindthe above,Ihave'cometothe conclusionthatthesepaymentscannot, in myview,be said tohave been madewholly andexclusively for the purposeof enabling thecompanytocarry onits business and acquireincome. • Irf'thecircumstances,Ithinkitwasreasonably opento the re­ spondentCommissionertocometo~the conclusionthat'triepay15 ments^in.question are,not^allowable.deductions for incometax * purposes and, therefore,I cannotinterferewith suchdecision. · ' 'IntHeresult,this'recourse fails'andis hereby dismissed with £100.-costs infavour of the'respohdents. '*'' '' '"' -Recourse·dismissed*with £ 100.costs infavourofrespondents. 20i Λ " .i t i i ' i ^ c - r j " ' - J V ' ;: J ''· ' t ·. ' · '- ' HZ " ' . U J ' ' - ' ' . J - b.'i ιι2>. ν "Λ, . Λ ^ > Λ·"5J ι;~Λ ' ' >• • η a-*· . .. '"' '•'/., jt}*> • " j f ' i ν . '.·-.' ..'J"*1 , ΐί ι-.... t · 'ι λ ν " ±r , Ί ' ί f,'· . '-.,ι " » '. ·ν :•·. ^Λ ci α>:·".- Ί _ ζ·. / "ΪΓ· 'ΓΓ^Κ t " u ·' ; Ϊ: Ι- α - , . > 'j - . . . i - - • ' . Γ ' - • . * w · " ^ · ,·",< ". ,·*ι - Ί > :a ι''L· _ .> "ι.··' . ' , ' ' • .Γ» -rivt t»V ' ι ' .· > ^ .ι ,' ι > '(ui* >ι ι'< <· ,:*J '~ ν j ·•: i f · - * - *" J > · •>ι - . . . J·* 1645

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.