The main legal principle established is that a direction to pay a sum free from income tax encompasses freedom from super-tax, considering the nature of super-tax as an additional duty of income tax.

JUDGMENT

LORD HANWORTH, M.R. - In this case we have an appeal from Eve, J., who of the testator was a direction to pay free, not only of income tax, but also of what is now known as sur-tax. The will that we have to consider is that of Sir Harold James Reckitt, and it was made on November 12, 1924. His death took place on December 29, 1930. In clause 12 of his will his words were as follows : "I bequeath to my trustees the sum of Pound 200,000 upon trust to invest the same in any of the investments hereinafter authorised and to hold the said investments upon trust thereout to pay my wife during her life the annual sum of Pound 5,000 free in income tax". There are no further directions that are relevant. There is no direction to pay in quarterly payments, or equal quarterly payments, the words "pay my wife during her life the annual sum of Pound 5,000 free of income tax." Eve, J., has held that that freedom so prescribed included freedom from sur-tax as well as income tax. Counsel for the appellants, who have presented to us, both of them very useful and helpful arguments, contend that those words ought to be confined to income tax alone, and cannot be made to cover the sur-tax. I am not unmindful that a distinction between what is known as sur-tax, or super-tax, and income tax can be drawn. I will use in future the words "super-tax," because sur-tax was introduced by the Finance Act of 1927, s. 38, sub-s. 1(b), but although the name is different I agree with Bennett, J., who said in the case Hulton, In re : Hulton v. Midland Bank Executor and Trustee, Ltd., after going very carefully through the provisions relative to the matter : "In every essential feature, super-tax and sur-tax are, in my judgment, the same tax." Now what is super-tax ? It was originally imposed by the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, s. 66. By that section it is declared that : "In addition to the income tax charged .... there shall be charged, levied and paid for the year .... in respect of the income of any individual, the total of which from all sources exceeds" a certain standard, "an additional duty of income tax (in this Act referred to as super-tax ....)" Those words are reproduced not in section 4 of Income Tax Act, 1918. The relevant words are exactly the same : "an additional duty of income tax (in this Act referred to as super-tax)" The question has arisen whether or not, for the purposes of the collection of super-tax, it was possible to rely upon the section which leaves standing, for the purpose of the maintenance and collection of income tax, those sections from year to year. In the case of Bowles v. Att-Gen., the question arose whether section 30 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890, applied for the purpose of the super-tax, and Parker, J., said, in the course of the argument : "Is not section 30 of the 1890 Act kept in operation for the purpose of collecting super-tax in due time ?" We all of us remember of controversy that took place in which Mr. Bowler was the champion. Parker, J., said 81 L.J. Ch. 161 : [1912] 1 Ch 134 : "The only question I have to decide in this action is whether this section applies not only to ordinary income tax, but the super-tax as well. In other words, I have to determine whether super-tax is a duty of income tax within the meaning of this section," and he held that it was that it was. He so held, in spite of a differentiation which it is not difficult to make, and which has been forcibly presented to us in the argument for the appellants. It is said that it is not the income tax for the year, but an additional tax. It is said, quite truly, that for the purposes of super-tax here is a duty cast upon every person chargeable therewith to give notice that he is chargeable to it, which shows that the initiative lies upon the subject, where in the case of the income tax the assessment is made upon him by the surveyor of taxes. More than that, by sub-section 6 of section 7 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, it was necessa