Taxation

MAJOR V BRODIECase LawWhere the revenue liability of an English taxpayer depended on the character of some entity or body structure which was non be under English rectitude the matter was to be driven by reference to the actual legal characteristics of that entity or structure under its own governing rectitude To the boundary that the taxpayers liability in the instant causa depended on the nature of a union under stinting police they were at that placefore sourceize and bound to be taxed by reference to the actual law which governed the confederacy . Moreover , under English or frugal law a handle carried on by a partnership was a mountain carried on by its members and independently of them (Major v . BrodieAny workmanshipr who bought an summation for purpose in his slyness was the owner of it , and inevitab ly utilize it in part for the persona of existence its proprietor . It was , however , legally possible for him to use the asset wholly for the purposes of the trade (Major v . BrodieSummaryThe author set-back recites the facts of the case . Taxpayers Mr . And Mrs Brodie were members of a partnership under the name of Skeldon Estates (family . The two entered into lend agreements with a finance company and win express loans to the SEP . The balance of the loan was however applied as the riotous s contribution of capital to a nonher partnership , W Murdoch discussion , a firm engaged in the trade of earth of which it was a member . Additional loan agreements were by and by entered into by the taxpayers , the amount of which was applied to the SEP which it used to purchase another farm for use by W Murdoch male child in its farming trade but which was not an asset of that partnership .

The taxpayers claimed tax relief under s 362 (1 ) of the Income and venter Taxes Act 1988 for affair on the loans for the years 1987-88 to 1992-93 as post on loans to defray capital applied in advance silver to the Skeldon Estates partnership for the purposes of the farming trade which it carried on as a partner in W Murdoch Son . The tax revenue denied relief to the taxpayers because they did not meet the necessitatement of s 362 (1 ) that the cash good be used wholly for the purposes of carrying on the trade of the partnership claiming the relief . The Revenue treated the money good to W Murdoch Son partnership as money advanced for the purposes of carrying on a separate trade , and not for SEPAccording to the author , the conditions of s 362 (1 (b ) a re satisfied . The provision of the law only when requires that the money be used wholly for the purposes of the trade carried on by the partnership it does not however require that such trade be carried on by the partnership simply . In his words : When the paragraph requires the money to be used wholly for the purposes of the trade carried on by the partnership there is...If you want to get a full essay, place it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay