Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 (HL)

Facts

  • The case concerned whether profits from the purchase and sale of machinery constituted taxable trading income or non-taxable capital gains.
  • The Commissioners established the primary facts regarding the purchase and subsequent resale of machinery.
  • The nature and frequency of the transaction, as well as the intent behind the parties' actions, were central to determining the correct tax treatment.
  • The dispute arose as to how the transaction should be legally classified for tax purposes: trading (taxable income) or non-trading (capital gain).

Issues

  1. Whether the classification of a transaction by the Commissioners is a question of fact or law, and thus whether it is open to judicial review.
  2. Whether the Commissioners’ inference about the nature of the transaction could be overturned if it involved a legal error or was unsupported by evidence.
  3. Whether the “no evidence” rule applied to permit appellate intervention in the Commissioners’ conclusion.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that the Commissioners’ conclusions about the true nature of a transaction, drawn from primary facts, constitute a question of law and are subject to judicial review.
  • While primary factual findings by the Commissioners are generally final, the legal classification of those facts can be reviewed for error.
  • The “no evidence” rule does not shield the Commissioners’ decision if their conclusion is unreasonable or based on a misapplication of legal principles.
  • It was determined that courts should not re-examine the primary facts but may intervene if the Commissioners’ classification of the transaction is not supported by the evidence or is legally incorrect.

Legal Principles

  • The distinction between findings of primary facts (usually final) and the legal conclusions drawn from those facts (reviewable) is critical in tax disputes.
  • The “no evidence” rule permits courts to overturn conclusions where there is an absence of evidentiary support, but the existence of some evidence does not make a decision unassailable if the law is misapplied.
  • Proper classification of transactions for tax purposes requires accurate analysis of all relevant circumstances, including frequency, nature, and intent.

Conclusion

The House of Lords confirmed that the legal characterization of a transaction for tax purposes is reviewable by the courts, even where the primary facts are not in dispute, establishing an important jurisdiction for judicial oversight in tax law matters.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal