| 22/8/2008 |
Bil-Malti
HOME
SERVICES
HELP
SEARCH
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case No. 16/51 |
Decided: 20 October, 1951 |
   |
|
A deduction in respect of an annuity payment was not allowed as it was deemed to be of a capital nature - articles 10 and 11, now 14 and 26, Income Tax Act
|
The Commissioner had disallowed a deduction in respect of an annuity payment made by appellant since this was not an expense that had been incurred in producing income.
Appellant claimed that although through the annuity contract he and his wife had acquired a capital asset (the undivided half of a tenement), this had resulted in an increase in their rental income.
The Board compared article 10, which lists those expenses which, if wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of the income, are deductible, and article 11, which excludes those expenses which are not wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of the income, particularly expenses of a capital nature.
The Board held that although the property acquired did actually earn appellant some profits, his main purpose when he entered into the contract must have been to increase his capital assets. In fact taxpayer and his wife had opted to pay an annuity of Lm240 per annum but at the same time they renounced to arrears of rent amounting to Lm3,560 due to them. Since the expense was not wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of the income, no part of it could be allowed as a deduction.
|
|
|
|
|