## Facts

- Mallandaine worked as a professional bookmaker, operating at racecourses and temporary venues without a fixed office.
- Tax authorities attempted to tax Mallandaine’s earnings under Schedule D of the Income Tax Act 1842, covering income from trades, professions, employments, or vocations.
- Mallandaine argued that his activities did not meet the statutory definition of “vocation” and thus should not be taxable.

## Issues

1. Whether Mallandaine’s activities as a bookmaker qualified as a “vocation” under Schedule D of the Income Tax Act 1842.
2. Whether the absence of fixed premises excluded such earnings from being taxable as income from a vocation.
3. Whether regular, systematic engagement in profit-oriented activity constituted taxable income regardless of formal business structure.

## Decision

- The court held that Mallandaine’s bookmaking constituted a “vocation” within the meaning of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act 1842.
- The judges determined that “vocation” encompassed more than traditional occupations and included any regular, planned effort to earn money by skill or judgment.
- The lack of fixed premises did not exempt Mallandaine from tax liability, as the nature and regularity of his activities brought him within the scope of taxable vocations.

## Legal Principles

- “Vocation” for tax purposes includes organized, repeated efforts to generate income through skill or judgment, regardless of formal business structures or permanent location.
- Tax liability depends on the regularity, organization, and profit motive of the activity, not solely on its physical premises or traditional employment status.
- The definition of taxable income under Schedule D is broad enough to capture diverse forms of self-employment and professional endeavor.

## Conclusion

Partridge v Mallandaine clarified that regular, skill-based income-generating activities, such as professional betting, fall within the scope of “vocation” for income tax purposes under Schedule D of the 1842 Act. The decision set a lasting precedent for taxing non-traditional and freelance work based on the nature and regularity of the activity rather than formal structures or fixed locations.

Partridge v Mallandaine (1886) 18 QBD 276