| 7/2/2012 |
HOME
FSS
Downloads
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case No. 18/66 |
Decided: 27 May, 1967 |
   |
|
Usufruct on property donated to minors; Income Tax Act not to be viewed in isolation - article 22, since repealed
|
Appellant's father had donated property to the latter on behalf of his minor children. In the contract, no specific provision had been made that the father was not to enjoy the legal usufruct.
This notwithstanding, Revenue considered the income arising from the property as being income earned by the father, in view of the fact that in terms of the Civil Code the father "has the right to take all kinds of fruits, whether natural, industrial or civil, which the thing subject to his usufruct is capable of producing". The Civil Code further laid down that "the father is bound to render to the child, on the latter's attaining majority, an account of the property and the fruits of those things of which the father does not have the usufruct" On the other hand, he is not bound to account for the fruits on which he enjoys the usufruct.
Appellant pleaded that according to sub-article 22(1)(b), a child's maintenance deduction was not to be allowed only "... in respect of any child who was entitled in his own right to an income exceeding eighty pounds...."
The Board held that it is a fact that a child may own property on which the father does not legally enjoy the usufruct, either because such income had been received under such conditions, or because they fell within the ambit of specific instances listed in the Civil Code provisions. The words "in his own rights" referred to such specific cases and not to whether the father enjoyed usufruct or not.
The Board made reference to the legal principle that the Income Tax Act cannot be viewed in isolation but in the light of the state's basic legal principles safeguarding the country's social and legislative order unless, of course, the subsidiary legislation did not specifically provide otherwise.
An appeal was entered before the Court from this decision (see case no. 71).
|
|
|
|
|