| 22/8/2008 |
Bil-Malti
HOME
SERVICES
HELP
SEARCH
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case no. 7/53 |
Decided: 25 April, 1953 |
   |
|
No deduction was allowed in respect of a grandson who had not been orphaned of the father - proviso to article 22(1)(b), now repealed, Income Tax Act
|
Appellant claimed a deduction in respect of his grandson whom he had wholly maintained. Appellant felt that the deduction was due to him because his daughter-in-law had left the family home and, two months later, his son (the father of the boy) had left Malta and was never heard of again. There was nobody to take care of and appellant's grandson had nobody to take care of him. Appellant was, for intents and purposes, the boy's father and, therefore a deduction was due to him.
The Board held according to the proviso to article 22(1)(b) the word 'child' implied that he was to be: (1) orphaned of the father; (2) a dependant of taxpayer or his wife; and (3) wholly maintained by taxpayer.
The second and third conditions were satisfied but not the first, since the child could not be considered orphaned of the father.
|
|
|
|
|