| 6/1/2009 |
Bil-Malti
HOME
SERVICES
HELP
SEARCH
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case No. 16/63 |
Decided: 18 April, 1964 |
   |
|
A deduction in respect of wear and tear is allowable in the case of an employee whose conditions of employment included the provision of a vehicle; interpretation of the word "vocation" - articles 5 and 10, now 4 and14, Income Tax Act
|
Appellant was employed by Government as a "driver with van" and was obliged to provide an "impressed car". The Commissioner, on the basis that the taxpayer was an employee and did not exercise a vocation, refused his claim for a wear and tear allowance.
The Board noted that article 5 of the Act made a distinction between "gains or profits from any trade, business, profession or vocation" and "gains or profits from any employment". Moreover, article 10 of the Act referred solely to the former, when providing for a wear and tear deduction.
The Board observed, however, that the English Courts had held that the word "vocation" was subject to a wide range of interpretation. Indeed in some of their sentences no distinction was made between "vocation" and "employment". In Patridge vs. Mallandaine it was held that "vocation is a word of very wide meaning, and means the way in which a person passes his life". The nature of appellant's employment was sui generis and not one in the ordinary meaning of the word. Normally an employee provides physical or mental services to his employer and not the tools of the trade. Taxpayer was obliged to provide the vehicle and had to keep it in good working order since his income depended entirely on its provision.
The Board ruled that, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, taxpayer was to be considered as one exercising a vocation in the context of article 10 of the Act.
An appeal was entered before the Court from this decision (see case no. 58).
|
|
|
|
|