Taxation

MAJOR V BRODIECase LawWhere the appraise liability of an English taxpayer depended on the character of some entity or body structure which was not be under English rectitude the matter was to be driven by reference to the actual legal characteristics of that entity or structure under its own governing honor To the end that the taxpayers liability in the instant eccentric depended on the nature of a compact under stinting police force they were at that placefore sourceize and bound to be taxed by reference to the actual law which governed the federation . Moreover , under English or stinting law a handle carried on by a partnership was a mountain carried on by its members and individually of them (Major v . BrodieAny workmanshipr who bought an plus for purpose in his switch over was the proprietor of it , and ine vitably utilize it in part for the persona of universe its proprietor . It was , however , legally possible for him to use the addition wholly for the purposes of the trade (Major v . BrodieSummaryThe author set-back recites the facts of the case . Taxpayers Mr . And Mrs Brodie were members of a partnership under the name of Skeldon Estates (family . The two entered into bring agreements with a finance company and promotion express loans to the SEP . The balance of the loan was however applied as the satisfying s contribution of capital to another partnership , W Murdoch rallying cry , a firm engaged in the trade of kitchen-gardening of which it was a member . Additional loan agreements were by and by entered into by the taxpayers , the amount of which was applied to the SEP which it used to purchase another farm for use by W Murdoch watchword in its farming trade but which was not an asset of that partnership . The taxpayers claimed tax relief under s 362 (1 ) of th e Income and erect Taxes Act 1988 for aff! air on the loans for the years 1987-88 to 1992-93 as evoke on loans to defray capital applied in advance capital to the Skeldon Estates partnership for the purposes of the farming trade which it carried on as a partner in W Murdoch Son . The tax revenue denied relief to the taxpayers because they did not meet the consumement of s 362 (1 ) that the property good be used wholly for the purposes of carrying on the trade of the partnership claiming the relief . The Revenue treated the money good to W Murdoch Son partnership as money advanced for the purposes of carrying on a separate trade , and not for SEPAccording to the author , the conditions of s 362 (1 (b ) are satisfied . The provision of the law only when requires that the money be used wholly for the purposes of the trade carried on by the partnership it does not however require that such trade be carried on by the partnership simply . In his words : When the paragraph requires the money to be used wholly for the p urposes of the trade carried on by the partnership there is...If you want to get a full essay, found it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay