JUDGMENT

LORD GREENE, M. R. :- The Royal Choral Society is an institution which has had a long and honourable history. It has performed services of great value to musical art. It would appear that in general the performances which it has given have been conducted at a loss; but there have been occasions, notably ion the year 1937, when "Hiwatha" was performed, when a performance was produced at a profit. This circumstance attracted the attention of the Inland Revenue Authorities, who sought to tax the income of the society, alleging that it is not a society "established for charitable purposes only"; and that its income is not exclusively applied for such purposes". The question which we have to decide is whether or not that contention of the Revenue is right.

The Special Commissioners accepted the view put before them by the Revenue; and their finding is contained in paragraph 13 of the case, where they say this : "Having considered the arguments and evidence adduced before us, we held that the society was not a body of persons established for charitable purposes only, and we refused the societys claims for exemption from income tax."

The preliminary argument presented by the Solicitor-General was to the effect that finding was, or involved, a finding of fact which was binding upon this Court. He quoted some observations of Lord Hanworth, when Master of the Rolls, in the case of Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Yorkhire Agricultural Society from which it would appear that in Lord Hanworths opinion the question whether or not a body of persons was "established for charitable purposes " would, in certain circumstances, be a question of fact. With all respect, I cannot accept that view. It is the business of the Commissioners to find facts. It is a question of law whether, upon the facts so found, the particular body in question is a body established for charitable purposes. That is a question of law; and in no circumstances, in my opinion, can it be turned into a matter of fact.

But, quite apart from those considerations, the passage which I have read, on its true construction, in my opinion is intended to be conclusion of law and nothing else.

The findings of fact of the Commissioners, so far as they are relevant, are not set out as such in the usual way at the conclusion of the case, but must be collected from the body of the case itself. In the body of the case are to be found several matters which show what the facts were which were established to the satisfaction of the Commissioners.

First of all, in paragraph 3, referring to a petition presented to the House of Lords against a Bill promoted by the Alert Hall Corporation, the Commissioners say : "The said petition sets out the other facts relating to the origin, management and conduct of the society." That, therefore, is a finding of fact.

The next matter later to the evidence given before them by Sir George Dyson. In dealing with that evidence, they have adopted a form which I have always thought, and on occasions have said, is not a desirable form to use in these cases. They say : "Sir George Dyson gave evidence before us and stated (inter alia)"; and then they set out what his evidence was. To may mind it is quite impossible to interpret that as meaning that, although Sir George Dyson said that, they did not believe him. The only significance and interpretation that can be given to that paragraph is that they accepted that evidence as evidence of fact; otherwise the paragraph is meaningless, if not misleading. We therefore find in the evidence of Sir George Dyson the matter of fact which we must take to have been found by the Commissioners.

Further embodied in Sir George Dysonss evidence in certain evidence referred to as taken from the printed report before the Select Committee on the Bill which I have mentioned. That, again, is part of the matters of fact. Sir George Dyson, in dealing with the technical matters relating to the particular art with which he is so familiar, was