## Facts

- Mr. Rutledge purchased one million rolls of toilet paper at a substantial discount in Berlin.
- After returning to the UK, he sold the entire consignment in a single transaction to one buyer.
- The Inland Revenue Commissioners contended that this activity constituted a trade, making the resulting profits subject to income tax.
- Mr. Rutledge argued that the transaction represented the sale of an asset, not the conduct of trade, as it was a single isolated sale.
- The legal dispute concerned whether this single, large transaction amounted to trading activity under UK tax law.

## Issues

1. Whether a single, substantial purchase and resale can amount to a "trade" for the purposes of income tax liability.
2. Whether the intention behind the transaction and its characteristics aligned more closely with business trading than with mere disposal of an asset.

## Decision

- The High Court found in favour of the Inland Revenue Commissioners, holding that the transaction constituted a trade.
- The court, through Rowlatt J., emphasized the significance of the scale of the operation and the specific intention to resell for profit.
- It was determined that such a large, purposeful acquisition of goods for resale indicated a business-like operation, distinguishing it from passive asset disposal.

## Legal Principles

- The intention to resell for profit is a strong indicator of trading activity, though not the only factor.
- The size and nature of a transaction may render even a single deal subject to characterization as "trade" if it exhibits commercial features.
- The type of asset involved can influence whether an activity is classified as trade, with common, easily tradable goods supporting such a classification.
- The framework established in Rutledge v IRC remains influential in interpreting "trade" in tax contexts, informing subsequent cases about the importance of intent, scale, and asset nature.

## Conclusion

The case established that a one-off, large-scale transaction can constitute trade under UK tax law if it bears characteristics of business activity, chiefly the intention to resell for profit and the nature of the asset involved. This principle continues to inform the assessment of tax liability for similar dealings.

Rutledge v Inland Revenue Commissioners (1929) 14 TC 490