## Facts

- Mr. Maxse edited and managed the _National Review_, a political journal.
- The Inland Revenue assessed his income under Schedule D of the Income Tax Act 1842, applicable to trades and professions.
- Mr. Maxse contended his editorial activities constituted a profession, not a trade, affecting the applicable tax treatment.
- The King's Bench Division examined the scope and character of his work to determine the correct classification.

## Issues

1. Whether Mr. Maxse’s activities as editor and manager of a journal amounted to a “profession” or a “trade” under Schedule D of the Income Tax Act 1842.
2. What factors define the distinction between a profession and a trade for tax purposes.
3. How to appropriately categorize income for proper tax assessment when business activities contain elements of both professions and trades.

## Decision

- The court found that while Mr. Maxse's work involved intellectual skill, it operated within an organized publishing business more akin to a trade.
- It held there is no strict or universal boundary between a profession and a trade, and decisions depend on the specific facts of each case.
- The determination involved examining the level of skill, the structure of the business, and the sources of profit.

## Legal Principles

- The line between profession and trade lacks an absolute definition; case-by-case factual analysis is necessary.
- Factors for classification include intellectual skill required, organization and operation of the business, and profit sources.
- Key tax law principles from _IRC v Maxse_ require careful assessment for each unique set of circumstances, avoiding rigid definitions.

## Conclusion

_IRC v Maxse_ [1919] 1 KB 647 establishes that the distinction between a profession and a trade for tax purposes relies on a detailed, fact-specific inquiry into the work’s nature, business organization, and sources of income, maintaining relevance and flexibility for future cases dealing with similar classification questions.

IRC v Maxse [1919] 1 KB 647