Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The second and third heads of the claim appear to me to be quite inadmissible. The second is for part of his dwelling-house used as an office; but the reverend gentleman himself stated that this was merely what in ordinary language is called a study, in which he receives calls from his parishioners and such like. It is quite plain that that is not a charge which can possibly be deducted from the assessable income. And so also with reference to the third head of the charge,—for books. It is needless to say more upon these.

The fourth head consists of expenses of attending meetings of mission board and presbyterial commissions. In regard to meetings of a mission board, which I understand to be in Edinburgh, and presbyterial commissions, all that one can say as at present advised is this, that if these are part of the duty of this minister of Stranraer, then the deduction ought to be allowed; but to make it part of his duty, it must either be a proper part of his parochial duty, which it certainly is not, or it must be a duty enjoined upon him by his ecclesiastical superiors, and that undoubtedly would require to be proved. But if it be the fact that these meetings and commissions are enjoined on him by the General Assembly or by the presbytery, then I should say the proposed deduction is probably a good one.

The remaining items for stationery, attending General Assembly, attending presbytery and synods, and communion expenses, have been in principle recognised by the Commissioners, and I think the counsel for the Inland Revenue did not dispute that these are within the class of charges which may fairly be held to fall under the 52nd section.

Now, having said so much, I think we can do no more. It is quite impossible to deal with figures. I do not understand in what way the Commissioners arrive at the figures which they have stated. They do not say they had any evidence before them. They do not seem to have examined the claimant Mr Charlton himself, who probably could have explained the whole thing, but they just take up the matter and take a hammer to it as it were, and allow so much for communion expenses, so much for attending presbytery and synods, and so much for attending the General Assembly.

I would therefore propose to your Lord-ships, if you agree with me in the observations that I have made generally about the class of charges that may be allowed, that this case should be sent back to the Commissioners with instructions to amend the case. To enable them to do that, of course they must have evidence before them, but I would also desire to say that while that will be the form of our interlocutor, I think this is a matter in which the claimant and the surveyor ought to come together and arrange the figures. If your Lordships agree with me about the class of charges to be allowed, all difficulty in principle will be removed, and the only thing to be established by reasonable evidence is, what is the amount in figures of the charges which should be allowed? That is a matter certainly that ought not to be appealed to this Court, but ought to be settled between the parties; and I hope, therefore, that they will both be reasonable in that respect. There is one observation also that perhaps it may be necessary to make, viz., that there are a number of these items of expenditure which do not admit of being regularly vouched, and in a great many cases I suppose the only kind of evidence that could reasonably be expected is a statement by the claimant himself of what he has actually expended upon each different occasion; and if that were given in detail, I have no doubt the Surveyor of Taxes would be perfectly satisfied.

Lord Shand—I concur generally in the opinion which your Lordship has delivered. With regard to the items of stationery, attending the General Assembly, attending presbyterial and synods, and communion expenses, the expenses under these four heads have been allowed by the Commissioners, and the only objection that was raised before us was one as to amount. I confess if they had given their mind to the question of amount I should not have been disposed to disturb their finding. The principle is settled that these things are to be allowed, and I see no reason to doubt that the principle is sound. So far as communion expenses are concerned there may be specialties in other cases which do not occur here. It was explained by the appellant, who pleaded his own case, that he does not hold a decree allocating his stipend upon teinds which expressly gives a certain sum for communion expenses. If he did, my impression would rather be that that ought not to go into income at all. In such a case it is given for expenses, it is not intended as income, and I should not regard it as income. In this case the clergyman gets so much a year from different sources, and he has expenses to pay out of his own pocket in connection with the dispensing of the communion, and I think the Commissioners have probably done quite rightly in seeking to ascertain, as I fancy they have done, the actual expense to the minister, and in allowing that. And therefore so far as these four items are concerned, in the view that the principle is right, I think the matter is one of very small detail, and I would not be disposed to disturb the findings of the Commissioners.

In regard to the other matters I entirely concur with your Lordship. The minister is bound to pay income tax upon his free income after deducting the expenses which

Page: 650↓