|
England - Taxation: Income-tax Delayers' Association
|
sand-@wwdb.org
|
Jun 10, 2003 15:46 PDT
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C32F67.4DE44B90
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This is the kind of case law we're looking for!
Well done! TRD>
-----Original Message-----
From: TRD
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 1:28 PM
To: Sandra Gibbs
Subject: Income-tax Delayers' Association
From the book: Misleading Cases in the Common Law by
A.P. Herbert,
Fourth Edition [1928], Methuen & Co. Ltd., London
Chapter 14, Can a Worm Turn?
Is this Sir Lawrence Leupol in a former life?
REX v. HADDOCK
A LARGE crowd, with bands, assembled outside the West London
Police Court to-day when the trial of Albert Haddock,
regarded by the Income-tax Commissioners as a test case, was
concluded.
The Chairman of the Bench said: In this case, Mr. Albert
Haddock of Hammersmith has been summoned under the Income
Tax Acts for knowingly making an untrue or incorrect return
of income upon Form No. II, YEAR 1927-28, ENDING 5TH APRIL
1928, PROFITS OF TRADES, PROFESSIONS, ETC.; INTEREST, INCOME
FROM ABROAD. ETC. (SCHEDULE D.). This form consists of (1) A
principal form, consisting of eight pages, foolscap size;
and (2) an enclosure, consisting of eight pages, foolscap
size; and (3) a short slip of some six thousand words,
neatly attached to the principal form with gum. The accused
person wrote down in every empty space the Latin word nil,
and in the space provided for TOTAL PROFITS OF TRADES,
PROFESSIONS, ETC., the words ' Absolutely nil'; he then
signed the form and returned it to the Inspector of Taxes.
And the present prosecution is the result of that action.
Now the accused, who has conducted his own case, has
treated the Court with commendable frankness, and although,
by his own confession, a literary man, appears to have in a
rudimentary state the instincts of a Briton. And I have
therefore paid more attention to his defence than I have
generally time for in this Court.
His defences are numerous. Firstly, he has sworn on oath
that on the slip (3) already referred to (which draws
attention to the change of basis for the assessment of
income-tax from the average of the three preceding years to
the general basis of the profits or income of the preceding
year), there is printed, at the taxpayers' expense, the
following, as he says, flippant passage:
' The provisions of Section 29 (3) are as follows: " If
any person who for the year 1926-27 was assessed and charged
under Schedule D or according to the Rides applicable to
that Schedule in respect of profits or gains or income
arising from any source upon an average of a period of three
years or more proves that the profits or gains or income of
either of the first two of the three years upon the average
of which he would, but for the provisions of this section,
have been charged for the year 1927-28 were less than the
profits or gains or income for one year upon an average of
the six years preceding these three years or, if he was not
in possession of the source of these profits or gains or
income during the six years aforesaid, upon an average of
the less period preceding the three years during which he
was so in possession, he shall, on giving notice in writing
to the Inspector not later than the fifth day of October,
nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, that he desires so to be
charged, be charged to tax for both the years 1927-28 and
1928-29 in respect to the profits or gains or income arising
from that source on the amount on which he would have been
charged if this section had not passed."'
The evidence of the accused is that in this
pronouncement (which is headed NOTE AS TO THE RELIEF WHICH
MAY BE CLAIMED BY TAXPAYERS) there are nearly two hundred
words; that, after reading the first fifty words, he laughed
heartily; that he then began again and read the whole
passage through from start to finish six or seven times,
first silently, then aloud, and finally singing to a chant
in B minor; that, after these exhaustive experiments the
words still conveyed no meaning to his mind whatever; that
he concluded that not even a Government Department could
with serious intent have issued to the whole body of
income-tax payers two hundred words entirely devoid of sense
or meaning; that therefore his first impression was probably
correct and the whole Form a base practical joke, to which
he replied in the same spirit and kind.
Having myself studied the Form in question, I find this
defence a good one. Unfortunately, however, Haddock has put
forward certain alternative defences, which somewhat
complicate the case.
Secondly he says that admittedly Section 29 (3), which I
have quoted, is not yet law, and that he sees no reason why
any man should split his head over it until it is.
Thirdly, he points out that he is asked to give an
estimate of his profits and gains for the financial year
(1927-28) which lies before us, and that his estimate of
these profits is in all veracity most happily expressed by
the Latin word nil.
Cross-examined, he said: ' There will be no profits of
my trades, professions, etc., under Schedule D, because
there will be no trades or professions, etc. I do not
propose to work during the forthcoming financial year. I
receive no encouragement to work, to earn money, or to save
money. If I earn money it is sent to America; if I save
money it is unearned income and immoral. If I earn no money
my children will be educated by the State free of charge; if
I earn money I cannot afford to send them to school. My own
needs are few and I can easily exist for a year by
systematic week-ends and sponging on relations.' To this
extraordinary outburst the prosecution replied that the
general basis for the assessment of income in the current
year is the profits accruing during the previous year, and
that his last year's income should have been returned. The
accused answered that obviously that general basis is only
put forward as a rough and untrustworthy guide where the
taxpayer has admittedly the intention of pursuing in the
coming year the same professional activities as in the year
preceding; but where, as in his case, the person assessed
does not expect or propose to earn anything this general
basis ceases to have importance; that income above all
things is a question of fact, and that ' No Income, No Tax '
is still a fundamental principle of English Liberty (see
Lord Mildew in Mucklow v. Mangles (1871), 2 A.C. 314). This
defence also appears to me to be unanswerable.
Fourthly, he says that, as a professional man (if
writing can be called a profession), he sees no reason why
any professional man should in any way assist the officers
of the Crown in the collection of Revenue; that the
professional man is the dog's-body of the State; that he is
constantly writing to The Times newspaper or to Ministers to
protest against injustices, or to point out the errors of
His Majesty's Government; that no notice is taken of these
protests; that he is referred to in Parliament
contemptuously as a direct taxpayer, as if he were somehow
immune from the payment of indirect taxes; that in fact he
pays the greater part of both; that the wine-tax is
monstrous, the whisky-tax monstrous, and the tobacco-tax
monstrous; that he sees no reason for the present ferocious
treatment of these simple indulgences, while those poisonous
pleasures with which women ruin their systems, such as tea,
coffee, and sweets, are classed as 'necessaries' and go
almost free; that beer is as much a necessity as tea; that
there should be no representation without taxation, and that
any woman may have his vote if she will take over his taxes;
that the general and other strikes were responsible for the
financial shortage of the country; that he was not
responsible for these strikes, but, on the contrary,
constantly remarked upon their futility; that the principle
of retribution appears to have been forgotten; that the
deficit was caused by the follies of certain persons and
classes and should have been made up by such taxes as would
have demonstrated to such persons and classes that strikes
cost money; that he is in favour of increased taxation of
the manual worker, who spends the money; that he (Haddock)
has studied carefully the items of National Expenditure, and
that from that eight hundred million pounds he (Haddock)
receives no benefit except the agreeable spectacle of the
Changing of the Guard and an occasional view of a distant
battleship; that if every Government Department were to
collapse in ruins at this moment he (Haddock) would not be a
penny the worse; that in these circumstances he does not
propose to exhaust himself by any elaborate efforts to
assist the Inland Revenue Department to collect his money;
that when a tax is placed upon bookmakers Whitehall becomes
impassable for the press of deputations anxious to express
their views to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the tax
is instantly reduced; that the similar heart-cries of the
professional man are instantly suppressed or coldly ignored;
that this must now be stopped; that he has founded a Society
to stop it; that the income-tax is intolerable; and that the
Income-tax Delayers' Association are paying his expenses in
this case.
In my judgment all these defences, severally and
collectively, are good defences, and the prisoner is
acquitted.
--
Copyright Kashtin (c) 2002. All rights reserved.
For information and educational purposes only. This is a
private communication between natural persons.
Corporate entities, agents of the government, or HMTQ are
forbidden to read, transmit, copy or forward this private
communication without prior written consent of Kashtin, a
natural person.
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C32F67.4DE44B90
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=585074220-10062003>This
is the kind of case law we're looking for!</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=585074220-10062003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=585074220-10062003>Well
done! TRD></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=585074220-10062003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> TRD <BR><B>Sent:</B>
Tuesday, June 10, 2003 1:28 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Sandra Gibbs<BR><B>Subject:</B>
Income-tax Delayers' Association<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<BR><B> </B>From the book: <B>Misleading Cases in the Common
Law </B>by A.P. Herbert, <BR>Fourth Edition [1928], Methuen & Co. Ltd.,
London
<P> Chapter 14, Can a Worm Turn?
<P> Is this Sir Lawrence Leupol in a former life? <BR>
<BR> <BR><BR>
<CENTER>
<P><B>REX v. HADDOCK</B></CENTER>
<P><B><FONT size=+3>A</FONT></B> LARGE crowd, with bands, assembled outside the
West London Police Court to-day when the trial of Albert Haddock, regarded by
the Income-tax Commissioners as a test case, was concluded.
<P> The <I>Chairman of the Bench</I> said: In this case, Mr.
Albert Haddock of Hammersmith has been summoned under the Income Tax Acts for
knowingly making an untrue or incorrect return of income upon Form No. II, YEAR
1927-28, ENDING 5TH APRIL 1928, PROFITS OF TRADES, PROFESSIONS, ETC.; INTEREST,
INCOME FROM ABROAD. ETC. (SCHEDULE D.). This form consists of (1) A principal
form, consisting of eight pages, foolscap size; and (2) an enclosure, consisting
of eight pages, foolscap size; and (3) a short slip of some six thousand words,
neatly attached to the principal form with gum. The accused person wrote down in
every empty space the Latin word <I>nil</I>, and in the space provided for TOTAL
PROFITS OF TRADES, PROFESSIONS, ETC., the words ' Absolutely <I>nil</I>'; he
then signed the form and returned it to the Inspector of Taxes. And the present
prosecution is the result of that action.
<P> Now the accused, who has conducted his own case, has
treated the Court with commendable frankness, and although, by his own
confession, a literary man, appears to have in a rudimentary state the instincts
of a Briton. And I have therefore paid more attention to his defence than I have
generally time for in this Court.
<P> His defences are numerous. Firstly, he has sworn on oath
that on the slip (3) already referred to (which draws attention to the change of
basis for the assessment of income-tax from the average of the three preceding
years to the general basis of the profits or income of the preceding year),
there is printed, at the taxpayers' expense, the following, as he says, flippant
passage:
<BLOCKQUOTE>' The provisions of Section 29 (3) are as follows: " If any person
who for the year 1926-27 was assessed and charged under Schedule D or
according to the Rides applicable to that Schedule in respect of profits or
gains or income arising from any source upon an average of a period of three
years or more proves that the profits or gains or income of either of the
first two of the three years upon the average of which he would, but for the
provisions of this section, have been charged for the year 1927-28 were less
than the profits or gains or income for one year upon an average of the six
years preceding these three years or, if he was not in possession of the
source of these profits or gains or income during the six years aforesaid,
upon an average of the less period preceding the three years during which he
was so in possession, he shall, on giving notice in writing to the Inspector
not later than the fifth day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven,
that he desires so to be charged, be charged to tax for both the years 1927-28
and 1928-29 in respect to the profits or gains or income arising from that
source on the amount on which he would have been charged if this section had
not passed."'</BLOCKQUOTE> The evidence of the accused is that
in this pronouncement (which is headed NOTE AS TO THE RELIEF WHICH MAY BE
CLAIMED BY TAXPAYERS) there are nearly two hundred words; that, after reading
the first fifty words, he laughed heartily; that he then began again and read
the whole passage through from start to finish six or seven times, first
silently, then aloud, and finally singing to a chant in B minor; that, after
these exhaustive experiments the words still conveyed no meaning to his mind
whatever; that he concluded that not even a Government Department could with
serious intent have issued to the whole body of income-tax payers two hundred
words entirely devoid of sense or meaning; that therefore his first impression
was probably correct and the whole Form a base practical joke, to which he
replied in the same spirit and kind.
<P> Having myself studied the Form in question, I find this
defence a good one. Unfortunately, however, Haddock has put forward certain
alternative defences, which somewhat complicate the case.
<P> Secondly he says that admittedly Section 29 (3), which I
have quoted, is not yet law, and that he sees no reason why any man should split
his head over it until it is.
<P> Thirdly, he points out that he is asked to give an
estimate of his profits and gains for the financial year (1927-28) which lies
before us, and that his estimate of these profits is in all veracity most
happily expressed by the Latin word <I>nil.</I>
<P> Cross-examined, he said: ' There will be no profits of my
trades, professions, etc., under Schedule D, because there will be no trades or
professions, etc. I do not propose to work during the forthcoming financial
year. I receive no encouragement to work, to earn money, or to save money. If I
earn money it is sent to America; if I save money it is unearned income and
immoral. If I earn no money my children will be educated by the State free of
charge; if I earn money I cannot afford to send them to school. My own needs are
few and I can easily exist for a year by systematic week-ends and sponging on
relations.' To this extraordinary outburst the prosecution replied that the
general basis for the assessment of income in the current year is the profits
accruing during the previous year, and that his last year's income should have
been returned. The accused answered that obviously that general basis is only
put forward as a rough and untrustworthy guide where the taxpayer has admittedly
the intention of pursuing in the coming year the same professional activities as
in the year preceding; but where, as in his case, the person assessed does not
expect or propose to earn anything this general basis ceases to have importance;
that income above all things is a question of fact, and that ' No Income, No Tax
' is still a fundamental principle of English Liberty (see Lord Mildew in
<I>Mucklow v. Mangles</I> (1871), 2 A.C. 314). This defence also appears to me
to be unanswerable.
<P> Fourthly, he says that, as a professional man (if writing
can be called a profession), he sees no reason why any professional man should
in any way assist the officers of the Crown in the collection of Revenue; that
the professional man is the dog's-body of the State; that he is constantly
writing to <I>The Times</I> newspaper or to Ministers to protest against
injustices, or to point out the errors of His Majesty's Government; that no
notice is taken of these protests; that he is referred to in Parliament
contemptuously as a <I>direct</I> taxpayer, as if he were somehow immune from
the payment of indirect taxes; that in fact he pays the greater part of both;
that the wine-tax is monstrous, the whisky-tax monstrous, and the tobacco-tax
monstrous; that he sees no reason for the present ferocious treatment of these
simple indulgences, while those poisonous pleasures with which women ruin their
systems, such as tea, coffee, and sweets, are classed as 'necessaries' and go
almost free; that beer is as much a necessity as tea; that there should be no
representation without taxation, and that any woman may have his vote if she
will take over his taxes; that the general and other strikes were responsible
for the financial shortage of the country; that he was not responsible for these
strikes, but, on the contrary, constantly remarked upon their futility; that the
principle of retribution appears to have been forgotten; that the deficit was
caused by the follies of certain persons and classes and should have been made
up by such taxes as would have demonstrated to such persons and classes that
strikes cost money; that he is in favour of increased taxation of the manual
worker, who spends the money; that he (Haddock) has studied carefully the items
of National Expenditure, and that from that eight hundred million pounds he
(Haddock) receives no benefit except the agreeable spectacle of the Changing of
the Guard and an occasional view of a distant battleship; that if every
Government Department were to collapse in ruins at this moment he (Haddock)
would not be a penny the worse; that in these circumstances he does not propose
to exhaust himself by any elaborate efforts to assist the Inland Revenue
Department to collect his money; that when a tax is placed upon bookmakers
Whitehall becomes impassable for the press of deputations anxious to express
their views to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the tax is instantly
reduced; that the similar heart-cries of the professional man are instantly
suppressed or coldly ignored; that this must now be stopped; that he has founded
a Society to stop it; that the income-tax is intolerable; and that the
Income-tax Delayers' Association are paying his expenses in this case.
<P> In my judgment all these defences, severally and
collectively, are good defences, and the prisoner is acquitted. <BR>
<P><FONT size=-1>--</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>Copyright Kashtin (c) 2002. All
rights reserved.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>For information and educational
purposes only. This is a private communication between natural persons.</FONT>
<P><FONT size=-1>Corporate entities, agents of the government, or HMTQ are
forbidden to read, transmit, copy or forward this private communication without
prior written consent of Kashtin, a natural person.</FONT> <BR>
</P></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C32F67.4DE44B90--
|
|
 |
|
