| 7/2/2012 |
HOME
FSS
Downloads
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case No. 1/51 |
Decided: 17 February, 1951 |
   |
|
Words and expressions used in the Income Tax Act which are known to the law of Malta shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Maltese law - article 2(2), Income Tax Act; interpretation of the word "adopted" - article 22(1)(b), now repealed, Income Tax Act; no fresh grounds of objection may be brought before the Board where such grounds had not formed part of the original objection - articles 55 and 57, Income Tax Act, now 33 and 35, Income Tax Management Act
|
Appellant claimed a personal deduction in respect of (a) two adopted children (b) a dependent relative. The Commissioner disallowed the deductions as these were not due and, particularly with respect to the second deduction, the Commissioner noted that it did not form part of the grounds of objection.
Regarding the first ground (adopted children), appellant maintained that the word "adopted" in article 22(1)(b) should be given a wider and more liberal interpretation than the strictly "legally adopted" as meant by the Civil Code. The Board held that the converse of article 2(2) meant that words and expressions used in the Income Tax Act which are known to the law of Malta shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Maltese law. There was no doubt that according to Maltese law the word "adopted" referred only to children who are adopted according to the legal formalities. Consequently, appellant was not allowed the deduction.
Regarding the second ground (dependent relative) the Board held that articles 55 and 57 make it clear that no fresh grounds of objection may be brought before the Board if such grounds had not formed part of the original objection. The Board accepted the Commissioner's nullity plea in respect of appellant's claim for a deduction for a dependent relative.
|
|
|
|
|