The Gazette 1967/71

may be raised for a yet earlier period of six years (the "third six years") "only . . . with the leave of the com missioners . . ." where, under section 51 (5) "it appears to the [commissioners] . . . that there are reasonable grounds for believing that tax . . . was or may have been lost to the Crown . . ." Subsection (7) provides that "An application for leave . . . may be made by the [inspector] . . . and on any such application the person to be assessed shall be entitled to appear and be heard." [Pearlberg v. Verty (Inspector of Taxes). Court of Appeal. The Times, 13 February, 1971.] A person who is entitled to an allowance under the Family Allowances Act, 1965, in respect of one child is not liable to have his personal reliefs against income tax reduced in respect of that allowance under section 14 of the Finance Act, 1968, but a person in receipt of more than one allowance is liable to suffer such a reduction in respect of all such allowances received by him. The Times, 5 March, 1971.] [Restorick (Inspector of Taxes) p. Beker. Ch. Div. Their Lordships dismissed an appeal by the taxpayers, Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd., affirming a decision of Mr. Justice Buckley, who had dismissed an appeal from the special commissioners who upheld an assessment to cor poration tax in respect of two of Shell's subsidiaries, without giving relief under section 84 and schedule 20 of the Finance Act, 1965 in respect of excess credit for foreign tax. The amount of relief claimed was some £6m. for the year 1966-67. [Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Carr (Inspector of Taxes) Court of Appeal. The Times, 4 March, 1971.] Taxpayer carries on business as publican, in Bray; the accommodation included a shop and residential flats which were let. Taxpayer was assessed to Income Tax for 1964/65 on the following: — (a) Profits as a publican; (b) Interest and income from securities; (c) Rents from letting premises; and (d) ownership of property. Taxpayer died in July 1965, but appeal continued by personal representatives. S.84 of Finance Act 1963 pro vided that the profits and gains arising from any rent in respect of any premises should be the annual profits, i.e. rents received less specified deductions. It was con tended that serving notices to quit and bringing eject ments were managerial in character, and should thus be deemed to be "earned income" from which a relief of one fourth could be deducted. It was however held by Kenny J. that the taxpayer was not carrying on or exercising a trade when she let her property. The Circuit Judge was wrong in deciding otherwise. Appeal allowed. [Meckin v. Parker. Kenny J. Unreported 8 February 1971.]

Restrictive Practices An agreement between Schweppes Ltd. and J. Lyon and Co. Ltd. for the marketing in England and Wales of Suncrush, Kia-ora and Sunfresh citrus fruit soft drinks only through Rose Kia-ora Sales Co. Ltd. was held to be registrable under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, and therefore it must be justified before the Re strictive Practices Court as being in the public interest. [Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreement v. Schweppes and Others. Ch. Div. The Times, 18 February 1971.] Sovereigns Immunity Before Lord Denning, Lord Justice Salmon and Lord Justice Pillimore. A corporation established by a statute of the Province of New Brunswick, Canada, with power to promote the industrial development and prosperity of the province on behalf of the Crown "in right of New Brunswick" was held to be an arm of a sovereign government and therefore entitled to immunity from suit in the courts of this country. [Mellingar and Another v. New Brunswick Corpor ation. Court of Appeal. The Times, 17 February, 1971.] State Privilege A claim of Crown privilege is not made in proper form if the class of documents in respect of which protection is sought is so wide as to be indeterminate, nor will a claim of legal privilege be allowed unless the documents sought to be protected are adequately described. [Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd. v. Com missioners of Customs and Excise.] Tax Law [See under Conflict of Interests. Brokaw and Another v. Seetrain U.K. Ltd. and the Government of the U.S.A. claimants.] Their Lordships, dismissing an appeal by Mr. Pearlberg from a decision of Mr. Justice Penny- cuick, last February, held that the commissioner to whom application is made for leave to raise an assessment re lating to the "second six years", under section six of the Income Tax Management Act, 1964, is bound to act fairly but is under no absolute duty to hear the taxpayer on the making of the application. The granting of such leave without hearing the taxpayer is not a nullity, nor are assessments raised after leave so granted ultra vires. For the purpose of making good to the Crown a loss of tax wholly or partly attributable to the fraud, wilful default, or neglect of the taxpayer, as assessment may be raised for any of the six years before the loss has become apparent to the Revenue (the "first six years") without leave (Income Tax Act, 1952, section 57). Section 6 of the 1964 Act provides that assessments may be raised out of time relating to a further six years (the "second six years") "only . . . with the leave of a com missioner given on being satisfied by an inspector . . . that there are reasonable grounds for believing that tax has or may have been lost to the Crown owing to the fraud or wilful default or neglect of any person". Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1960, provides that an assessment

.258