| 6/1/2009 |
Bil-Malti
HOME
SERVICES
HELP
SEARCH
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case No. 12a/68 |
Decided: 11 January, 1969 |
|
|
Admission of third party to the case - article 57, Income Tax Act, now 35 Income Tax Management Act
|
An insurance company submitted an application to intervene in the case in view of the fact that it was an "interested party" once the merits of the case devolved on whether policies issued by the company qualify or not for a deduction allowed at law, wholly or in part. The company pleaded that Revenue was discriminating against it's product and causing it damages. Premiums paid in respect of life endowment policies with profits had always been considered to be deductible in full for tax purposes whereas in the case of its product only a portion of the premium is being deducted.
In matter of procedures the Board has to abide by those set by the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure. The Code provides that "Any person who shows to the satisfaction of the Court that he is interested in any suit" may be admitted as a party to the suit at any stage, the operative word being "interested" which interest must be juridical, direct, personal and actual.
The Board held that, whatever its decision, the insurance company would not be directly effected and, therefore, its interest was only an indirect one; though the decision might have a bearing on the sale of the insurance product, the degree of interest does not justify the company being admitted as a party to the case.
Moreover, in terms of sub-article 57(4) of the Income Tax Act "All appeals to the Board shall be heard in camera." It would be absurd to allow the intervention of a third party when hearing a case behind closed doors. Should, for the sake of argument, appellant give his consent to the presence of a third party, it would render the acceptance of an intervention of a third party to appellant's consent or otherwise and not to whether such intervention is justifiable in terms of law.
An appeal was entered before the Court from this decision. The Board's decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal on the 31 March 1969 (see case no. 74a).
|
|
|
|
|