Re XY & Company
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 18 February 1966 |
| Date | 18 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | Case Stated No 1 of 1963 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
[1966] SGHC 3
M Buttrose J
Case Stated No 1 of 1963
High Court
Revenue Law–Income taxation–Appeals–Whether Comptroller entitled to raise additional assessments after appeals disposed of–Sections 73, 84 Income Tax Ordinance 1962 (No 15 of 1962)
The taxpayer had lodged an appeal to the Board of Income Tax Review (“the Board”) against assessments made by the Comptroller for a certain period. The Board issued a decision. The taxpayer appealed against part of that decision and the Comptroller cross-appealed. The appeals were heard by the High Court and disposed of finally by the Court of Appeal.
Subsequently, the Comptroller issued additional assessments relating to the same period, based on an examination of previously undisclosed documents. The taxpayer appealed against the additional assessments to the Board. The Board then referred the matter to the High Court for an opinion on whether the Comptroller was precluded from issuing the additional assessments under s 84 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1962 (No 15 of 1962) or alternatively, on the principles of res judicata.
Held:
(1) On the proper construction of ss 73 and 84 of the Income Tax Ordinance, the Comptroller can (subject to time limits) always raise additional assessments where the matter has not gone to the Board. Where it has gone to the Board and been determined by it or on appeal the Comptroller cannot subsequently substitute his own opinion for that of the Board or the appellate court and cannot raise additional assessments which have the effect of re-opening their decision provided the matter in question was one which the Board or the appellate court actually dealt with: at [15].
(2) The additional assessments did not involve reopening any matter already dealt with on appeal, and the principle of res judicata had no application. In any event, the discovery of new facts which were not taken into account and were not available to the Comptroller or the Board when these additional assessments were determined on appeal permits the making of further additional assessments which are not affected by those previous determinations: at [37] and [38].
(3) Section 80 (3) of the Ordinance places the onus on the taxpayer to establish matters which show the invalidity of the assessments: at [43].
ABC v Comptroller of Income Tax, Singapore [1959] MLJ 162 (folld)
Anderton and Halstead, Limited v Birrell (Inspector of Taxes) [1932] 1 KB 271; (1929-32) 16 TC 200 (refd)
Brooks v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (1915-21) 7 TC 236 (refd)
Cansick v Hochstrasser (1959-63) 40 TC 151 (folld)
Cenlon Finance Co Ltd v Ellwood [1961] Ch 50; [1960] 3 All ER 390 (folld)
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Sneath (1928-33) 17 TC 149 (refd)
Kidston v Aspinall (1961-64) 41 TC 371 (folld)
Income Tax Ordinance 1962 (No 15 of 1962) ss 73, 84 (consd); ss 76 (4), 80 (3), 82, 85
Income Tax Act 1952 (c 10) (UK) ss 41, 50 (2), 510
L A J Smith (Elias Brothers) for the first and third appellants
S H D Elias (Laycock & Ong) for the second appellant
G S Hill (Rodyk & Davidson) for the Comptroller of Income Tax.
1 This is a case stated under s 82 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1962 (No 15 of 1962) (“the Ordinance”) by the Board of Income Tax Review (“the Board”), for the opinion of the High Court and relates to appeals against certain additional assessments to income tax raised in 1957 in respect of the partnership business of XY & Co for the period 1 January 1950 to 14 May 1951, on which latter date the partnership terminated.
2 The position was that the appellants, who were the partners of the firm of XY & Co during the above period, were originally assessed for the year of assessment 1951 by notices of assessment dated 3 October 1951. By notices of additional assessment dated 8 July 1953, the appellants were further assessed to tax in respect of the years 1950 and 1951. Notices of objection to these additional assessments were given to the Comptroller by letter dated 30 July 1953, who refused to amend them and notices of appeal to the Board against this refusal were lodged by the appellants on 17 May 1954, and a petition of appeal was filed on 9 June 1954.
3 The appeal was part heard by the Board in October and November 1954, and related to assessments on the income of the appellants as partners of the firm of XY & Co from 1 January 1950, to 14 May 1951. There was also a further appeal against the assessment of the appellants for the remainder of the year 1951, but it was agreed that a decision in respect of the period 1 January 1950, to 14 May 1951, should be given first.
4 The Board gave its decision on 3 December 1954, but made no final order on the assessments under appeal and adjourned the remainder of the appeal sine die.
5 The appellants thereupon appealed to the High Court against the Board's decision in respect of only one of the disputed items and the Comptroller cross-appealed against another. By consent, the High Court allowed the appellants' appeal to a limited extent and dismissed the Comptroller's cross-appeal. The appellants then appealed to the Court of Appeal but their appeal was dismissed.
6 In or about October or November 1957 and prior to December of that year the Income Tax Department examined certain documents relating to the stock records of XY & Co relevant to the period 1950 to the 14 May 1951 not previously tendered to the department. As a result of the examination of these documents further additional assessments were raised on the appellants on the 5 December 1957 arising from their share of the income of XY & Co during the period 1 January to 14 May 1951.
7 It is these further additional assessments hereinafter referred to as “the 1957 additional assessments” which are now the subject of an appeal to the Board which has stated the present case for the opinion of this court.
8 To complete the picture, I think, I should add that the appeals for the remainder of the year 1951, which had been adjourned sine die by the original Board, were finally dealt with and disposed of by another Board in August 1961 when in making its final assessment for the whole period under...
To continue reading
Request your trial