Wilson J:

Mr. Jasper Bettram Young, who was a director of Boustead and Co. Ltd a company registered in Malaya in 1921, died on 4 February 1948 and the question which arises in this case is: what is the amount of estate duty payable on his estate in the Federation of Malaya? There are only two points for the consideration of this Court.The first one is: what was the value of 2,500 ordinary shares in the company at the date of the death of Mr. Young? And the second one is: what was the additional director's remuneration to which his estate is entitled and to which he would have been entitled if he had lived until such time as the directors could have settled such additional remuneration after the accounts had been presented and passed? The company's financial year ends on 28 February each year and by agreement, for the purposes of this case, the balance sheet of the company for the year ending 29 February 1948 which happened to be a leap year, has been used.

The amended assessment of estate duty by the Collector of Estate Duty of the ordinary shares in the company is $150 per share, and the assessment of the additional director's remuneration is $140,270.67 for the year ending 29 February 1948.

I will deal first with the question of the value of the ordinary shares.In this connection I have been referred to the case of the Attorney General of Ceylon v. Mackie & Anor. [1952] 2 All ER 775.In that case it was held that the shares of a deceased director of the company could not have been sold at the date of his death at a price based on any higher figure than the value of the tangible assets of the company and that, therefore, that value should be adopted in the valuation of the shares for the purposes of estate duty.If that basis is to be accepted as the basis of valuation in this case, the two accountants who gave evidence, one for the Collector and the other for the executors, are both agreed that on a breakdown basis the value of an ordinary share in Boustead & Co. Ltd on 4 February 1949 was $150.However, I do not think that that is the basis on which the shares should be valued in this case.In the case of the Ceylon company which was incorporated in 1922, no dividend had been paid on preference shares since 1930 and on the management shares since 1926.In 1940, owing to war conditions the future of the rubber trade was unpredictable, and it was difficult to find anyone willing to invest large sums of money on speculation.In that case the deceased died on 7 September 1940, and it was held that where the past history of a business showed consistent results or a steady trend and where there had been no disruption of general business conditions, it might be possible to reach a fair valuation by theoretical calculation, but that as neither condition was satisfied a calculation on that basis was not possible.

In the case of Boustead & Co. Ltd. the circumstances are entirely different.It is true the company which was formed in 1921 only took over the partnership business of Edward Boustead & Co. in February 1947.That, however, merely amounted to a change in name and legal entity.In my opinion, therefore, the whole history of the firm of Boustead & Co. prior to the incorporation of the company and to the sale of the partnership business to the company in 1947 must be taken into account.It is quite clear on the evidence that the standing and reputation of Boustead & Co. Ltd. is one of the highest in Malaya and that the original business was founded in 1828.The fact that there was a cessation of business for four years during the Japanese occupation appears to me to be immaterial, except that, as stated by Mr. Noble, by reason of this cessation it was impossible to regard the pre-war record of profits up to 1940 as a reliable guide to post-war profit prospects from 1946 onwards.In short, I am satisfied that the business of Boustead & Co. Ltd. could not be described as speculative and that it is not impossible to arri