Drummond v Austin Brown [1984] BTC 142
Judgement for the case Drummond v Austin Brown
Table Of Contents
Davis v Powell applied.
The taxpayer was a solicitor who had a tenancy of his business premises protected by Part II LTA 1954. The landlord served notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenant was entitled to compensation under the Act.
Held, the taxpayer's right to compensation on the termination of the lease was not derived from his lease, but from the 1954 Act and since in creating that right the Act did not require any provision to be written into the lease, it could not be said that the compensation received by the taxpayer was derived from his lease.
Fox LJ
We do not think the sum can be said to be derived from any asset.
It was, as Templeman J said in Davis (Inspector of Taxes) v Powell, simply a sum which Parliament said should be paid.
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on Drummond v Austin Brown
Land Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Land Law | Leases Notes (77 pages) |
Taxation Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.