| 21/8/2008 |
Bil-Malti
HOME
SERVICES
HELP
SEARCH
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case No. 2/50 |
Decided: 29 May, 1950 |
   |
|
Deduction for medical expenses disallowed - article 22, now repealed, and article 10 (now article 14), Income Tax Act; Interpretation of fiscal law - article 6 (now article 10), Income Tax Act
|
Taxpayer had incurred medical expenses in respect of his wife and child during the year 1947 but he had actually paid these in 1948. The Commissioner had not allowed a deduction for the said expenses as these did not relate to a year immediately preceding a year of assessment as laid down in article 6 (now 10).
Appellant contended that article 22(3) contemplated a deduction to an individual resident in Malta in the year immediately preceding the year of assessment for any payment made by him in the said year to any legally qualified medical practitioner. It was not important when such services had been rendered. Besides, according to article 10(1), "there shall be deducted all outgoings and expenses wholly and exclusively incurred during the year preceding that of assessment". Therefore, the different wording used in the said two articles should support his conclusion.
The Commissioner countered that article 22(3) is to be read conjointly with 22(1) and 6. In allowing all personal deductions the Law had in mind only those medical expenses rendered during the year preceding that of assessment, i.e. during the year the person had maintained a wife and/or a child.
The Board held that it is an established rule of legal interpretation that one has to look not only at the bare meaning of words used in an Act but also at their logical meaning without causing thereby serious obstacles to the smooth working of the Act. In other words, one must always keep in mind the text and the spirit of the law in order that a logical, and not merely literal, decision may result. This should be even more so in the interpretation of fiscal laws.
|
|
|
|
|