| 22/8/2008 |
Bil-Malti
HOME
SERVICES
HELP
SEARCH
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case No. 28/51 |
Decided: 23 February, 1952 |
|
|
Taxability of an overseas allowance; deduction in respect of expenses incurred in the production of the income - articles 5(1)(b), 10(1) and 11(c), now 4(1)(b), 14 and 26, Income Tax Act
|
Appellant received an overseas allowance for working in Malta. He claimed that the said allowance should have been deducted from his salary as it had been an expense incurred in the production of the income.
The Board decided that the allowance was part of his salary and taxable under article 5(1)(b) which charged to tax "gains or profits from any employment, including the estimated annual value of any quarters or board of residence". This included bonuses, premiums and allowances. While other countries had deemed it fit to exempt such allowances, the law in Malta did not.
Nor could the allowance be considered to be an expense incurred in the production of the income. To be deductible, an expense had to be wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of the income. Now the allowance in question had been intended to cover expenses of a domestic or private nature, which were specifically disallowed by article 11.
In support of its decision, the Board also cited a British tax case (Barson v. Airey) quoted in Murray & Carter.
The distinction between "basic wage", "overseas allowance", "bonuses" etc. did not mean that an allowance is not included in a salary. All such payments are made for services rendered.
A different interpretation could give rise to evasion of tax and lead to collusion between an employee and his employer by inflating the amount of an allowance in order to reduce tax on the salary.
|
|
|
|
|