Estate Kootcher v Commissioner for Inland Revenue
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | De Wet CJ, Watermeyer JA, Tindall JA, Centlivres JA and Feetham JA |
Judgment Date | 29 March 1941 |
Citation | 1941 AD 256 |
Hearing Date | 18 March 1941 |
Court | Appellate Division |
Watermeyer, J.A.:
In this case a dispute has arisen between the parties as to the correct assessment under sec. 4 of Act 29 of 1922 of the dutiable amount of the estate of the late Morris Kootcher.
It appears that Kootcher, who was domiciled in South-West
Watermeyer, J.A.
Africa when his death occurred on 12th December, 1935, owned property both in South-West Africa and in the Union. His assets in South-West Africa were worth £36,544 and his assets in the Union £65,795. Among his liabilities was a debt of £35,691 owed to the Standard Bank of SA Ltd in the form of an overdraft at the Windhoek branch of the bank. As security for this debt Kootcher had passed a mortgage bond of £10,000 over his immovable property in South-West Africa and had pledged gold mining shares for the balance of £25,691. These shares were at the time of his death in the possession of the Johannesburg branch of the Standard Bank. They were realised in the Union by Kootcher's executor, and the debt of £25,691 was paid out of the proceeds of such realisation. In calculating the dutiable amount of the estate for the purposes of assessing Estate and Succession duty the Commissioner for Inland Revenue refused to allow the said debt of £25,691 to be deducted from the total value of the estate. The sole question which this Court is asked to decide is whether or not sec. 4 (a) (ii) of Act 29 of 1922 permits deduction of that debt from the value of the assets of the estate for the purpose of determining the dutiable amount of the estate. That section authorises the deduction of "all debts due by the deceased to persons ordinarily resident within the Union", and the dispute between the parties centres round the question whether the Standard Bank of SA Ltd is in law to be regarded as "ordinarily resident within the Union".
The Standard Bank of S.A.Ltd is a company incorporated with limited liability under the English Companies Acts. Its registered office is in London and its business is controlled by a board of directors which meets in London. It had many branches throughout the Union and South-West Africa which are under the supervision of a general manager in Cape Town, responsible to the directors in London. In the Transvaal Provincial Division MARITZ, J., decided that the debt was not a permissible deduction.
Relying on the decision of Rex v Lovitt and Others (1912, A.C. 212), he took the view that the Windhoek branch of the Standard Bank of SA Ltd...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bisonboard Ltd v K Braun Woodworking Machinery (Pty) Ltd
...to the following authorities: Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs 1941 AD 53 at 58 - 62; Estate Kootcher v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1941 AD 256 at 260; De Beers C Consolidated Mines v Howe 1906 AC 455 at 459; T W Beckett & Co Ltd v H Kroomer Ltd 1912 AD 324 at 334; Grimshaw v Mica Mi......
-
Does the Bill of Rights Apply Extraterritorially for Tax Administration Purposes?
...3 SA 242 (A) 247-248 For a discussion of the meaning of “re sident” in tax law, see Est ate Kootcher v Commis sioner for Inland Reven ue 1941 AD 256 260; H v Commissio ner of Taxes 1960 2 SA 695 (SR) 696-697 (2020) 31 Stell LR 37© Juta and Company (Pty) “incorporate d, established or formed......
-
Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Lever Bros and Another
...v Public Trustee (supra, at 116, 119, 120); Union Government v Fisher's Executrix (1921 TPD 328 at 333-4); cf. Kootcher's Estate v C.I.R. (1941 AD 256) ). The rule that a debt is assumed to be situate where the debtor resides, has not been applied to debts under seal or specialty debts. See......
-
Parity Insurance Co Ltd v Wiid
...(T), the Railways did not 'carry on business' at a branch station. Beckett's case approved of that decision. Estate Kootcher v C.I.R., 1941 AD 256, reaffirmed the principle, and held that for the purpose of the Death Duties Act 'the place where the corporation carries on business' means 'th......
-
Bisonboard Ltd v K Braun Woodworking Machinery (Pty) Ltd
...to the following authorities: Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs 1941 AD 53 at 58 - 62; Estate Kootcher v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1941 AD 256 at 260; De Beers C Consolidated Mines v Howe 1906 AC 455 at 459; T W Beckett & Co Ltd v H Kroomer Ltd 1912 AD 324 at 334; Grimshaw v Mica Mi......
-
Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Lever Bros and Another
...v Public Trustee (supra, at 116, 119, 120); Union Government v Fisher's Executrix (1921 TPD 328 at 333-4); cf. Kootcher's Estate v C.I.R. (1941 AD 256) ). The rule that a debt is assumed to be situate where the debtor resides, has not been applied to debts under seal or specialty debts. See......
-
Parity Insurance Co Ltd v Wiid
...(T), the Railways did not 'carry on business' at a branch station. Beckett's case approved of that decision. Estate Kootcher v C.I.R., 1941 AD 256, reaffirmed the principle, and held that for the purpose of the Death Duties Act 'the place where the corporation carries on business' means 'th......
-
Vanderbijl Park Health Committee and Others v Wilson and Others
...p. 31), Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs (1941 AD at p. 58), Beckett & Co., Ltd v Kroomer Ltd. (1912 AD 334), Estate Kootcher v C.I.R. (1941 AD 256 at pp. 259 - 61). As to the meaning of the word 'ordinarily', see Inland Revenue Commissioners v Lysaght (1928, A.C. 234 at pp. 243). Basson......
-
Does the Bill of Rights Apply Extraterritorially for Tax Administration Purposes?
...3 SA 242 (A) 247-248 For a discussion of the meaning of “re sident” in tax law, see Est ate Kootcher v Commis sioner for Inland Reven ue 1941 AD 256 260; H v Commissio ner of Taxes 1960 2 SA 695 (SR) 696-697 (2020) 31 Stell LR 37© Juta and Company (Pty) “incorporate d, established or formed......
-
Analyses: Has Recent United Kingdom Case Law Affected the Interplay Between ‘Place of Effective Management’ and ‘Controlled Foreign Companies’?
...approach would also be applied to determine the ‘place of effective management’of a trust.27Oceanic supra note 2 in par 20.281941 AD 256.29Idem at 259–60.30Idem at 260.31Ibid.(2012) 24 SA Merc LJ428© Juta and Company (Pty) Likewise, in ITC 174132the Court stated that ‘[i]t is trite that sin......
-
Bisonboard Ltd v K Braun Woodworking Machinery (Pty) Ltd
...to the following authorities: Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs 1941 AD 53 at 58 - 62; Estate Kootcher v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1941 AD 256 at 260; De Beers C Consolidated Mines v Howe 1906 AC 455 at 459; T W Beckett & Co Ltd v H Kroomer Ltd 1912 AD 324 at 334; Grimshaw v Mica Mi......
-
Does the Bill of Rights Apply Extraterritorially for Tax Administration Purposes?
...3 SA 242 (A) 247-248 For a discussion of the meaning of “re sident” in tax law, see Est ate Kootcher v Commis sioner for Inland Reven ue 1941 AD 256 260; H v Commissio ner of Taxes 1960 2 SA 695 (SR) 696-697 (2020) 31 Stell LR 37© Juta and Company (Pty) “incorporate d, established or formed......
-
Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Lever Bros and Another
...v Public Trustee (supra, at 116, 119, 120); Union Government v Fisher's Executrix (1921 TPD 328 at 333-4); cf. Kootcher's Estate v C.I.R. (1941 AD 256) ). The rule that a debt is assumed to be situate where the debtor resides, has not been applied to debts under seal or specialty debts. See......
-
Parity Insurance Co Ltd v Wiid
...(T), the Railways did not 'carry on business' at a branch station. Beckett's case approved of that decision. Estate Kootcher v C.I.R., 1941 AD 256, reaffirmed the principle, and held that for the purpose of the Death Duties Act 'the place where the corporation carries on business' means 'th......