TAX CASES. 321
No. 98.— H o u se of L ords. 2 6 th A p r il 1888.
R u s s e ll (Surveyor of Taxes) v. A b erd een Tow n and
C ou n ty B ank.
Income tax. —r- Schedule D. — Deduction from profits. A
bank o^vns the buildings in which its business is earned on,
and portions of the buildings are occupied as residences by the
bank managers and agents.
Held (affirming- tlie judgment of the Court of Session), that
the annual value of the whole premises may be deducted in
estimating the profits under Schedule D.
At a meeting of the Commissioners of Income Tax for the
county of Aberdeen, held at Aberdeen on 3rd August 1886
—Present, Francis Edmond, LL.D., Esquire, of Kingswells;
and George Jamieson, Esquire, of Rosebank—
John Keith, Secretary, and on behalf of the Town and County
Bank, Limited, Aberdeen, appealed against.the assessment upon
the sum of l,058i., under Schedule D. of the Income Tax Acts,
made on the bank for the year 1885-86.
The following facts were admitted :—
1. That the whole premises, both in Aberdeen and elsewhere, in which the appellants carry on business, are
the property of the appellants, and that the appellants
pay income tax on these premises under Schedule A.
of 5 & 6 Yict. c. 35.
2. That the premises used as the head office of the bank in
Aberdeen, and in the same way the premises used as
the branch offices of the bank in the different places
where they carry on business, contain certain accommodation occupied as a dwelling-house by the manager
or resident agent of the bank, as the case may be. The
said manager and agent receive said accommodation as
part of their emolument in the service of the bank,
but the annual’ value of this accommodation is not
assessed to income tax otherwise than under Schedule A.
as aforesaid.
3. That the sum in question is the aggregate annual value
of the portions of the said premises occupied by the
officials or agents of the bank as their dwellinghouses.
R u s s e l l
v. A b e r d e e n
TOW S A ID
COOKTY BAHK,
Source: https://www.bailii.org/
