JUDGMENTBY: LORD WILBERFORCE

This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana which by a majority dismissed the appellants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of British Guiana. The latter court had in turn dismissed the appellants appeal against a decision of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in respect of an Income Tax assessment for the year of assessment 1962.

By a deed of covenant dated 23rd May 1961 the appellant had covenanted to pay to The Citizens Advice and Aid Service of Lot 35, High Street, George-town, an annual payment of $ 4,200.00 for three years for the benefit of the service. The question was whether this annual sum was to be treated as the income of the appellant for purposes of income tax. The result of the decisions under appeal is that it is to be so treated. The relevant enactment is section 53(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance Cap. 299, as substituted by section 7 of the Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance 1958 (No. 4) and amended by section 33 of the Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance 1962 (No. 11). The effect of this subsection is that the annual payment is to be treated as the chargeable income of the appellant

"unless the income has been transferred, assigned or otherwise disposed

of for a period exceeding 2 years or for the remainder of his life to

or for the benefit of any ecclesiastical, charitable or educational

institution, organisation or endowment of a public character within

British Guiana, or elsewhere as may be approved by the Governor for the

purposes of paragraph (d) of section 10 of this Ordinance".

By section 8 of the Civil Law of British Guiana Ordinance Cap. 2 it is provided:

"8. The law as to charities shall be the common law of England:

Provided that--

(a) no bequest or gift, whether testamentary or otherwise, shall be

held void by reason only that it is for a superstitious use or

purpose; and

(b) by charities shall be ordinarily understood charities within

the meaning, purview, and interpretation of the preamble to the

Act of the forty-third year of Queen Elizabeth, chapter four, as

preserved by section 13 of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act,

1888."

It was held by all the learned judges in the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court that "charitable" where it appears in section 53(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance must be interpreted in accordance with the definition of "charities" quoted above. Their Lordships agree that this must be so, the juxtaposition of the words "ecclesiastical" and "educational" being, strictly, surplusage. But the appellant advanced another contention as to the interpretation of section 53(3). This was that the exception, introduced by the word "unless", and quoted above, was not confined to cases where the income was paid to an "ecclesiastical, charitable or educational institution" but extended separately to cases where it was paid to an "organisation or endowment of a public character within British Guiana" whether "charitable" or not. The recipient of the income in question ( i.e., the service) was, it was contended, an organisation of a public character.

In their Lordships opinion the words quoted are not susceptible of this construction. They can feel no doubt (a) that the adjectives "ecclesiastical, charitable or educational" qualify all the three nouns which follow -- "institution, organisation or endowment" and (b) that the words "of a public character ... " qualify all that has preceded them and not merely "endowment". It has been pointed out that section 10(d) of the Ordinance, which confers on the covenantee an exemption (no doubt intended to correspond with the exception in favour of the covenantor contained in section 53(3) ), uses the words "any ecclesiastical, charitable, or educational institution or endowment of a public character ... " omitting the word "or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document