16 |
is not spontaneous and there is an element of recurrence.76 However, if the gift had been of an exceptional kind, such as a golden wedding present,77 a testimonial or a contribution for a particular purpose (ie to provide a holiday or a subscription due to the personal qualities of the particular clergyman), it might be a mere present.78 The Church of England now pools the Easter offerings for redistribution at diocesan level; one listens to episcopal denunciations of the greed of tax planners with interest. |
14A.4.3.4 Sporting Achievements—Bonus or Appreciation? |
Sey mour v Reed79 concerns the world of 1920s cricket. Seymour, the taxpayer, was a professional cricketer employed by Kent. In 1920 he was awarded a benefit season. Members of the club subscribed money to a fund for him and he was allowed to receive the gate money at one of the home matches of that season.80 The gate money of £939.80 was held by trustees, together with the subscriptions, until Seymour had found a farm. The money was then paid over to him and used by him for the payment of the farm. The Revenue attempted to tax the £939.80 for the year when it was paid over. The attempt failed. The payment was a personal gift and not employment income. He had no right to a benefit season, the benefit would usually be towards the close of a man’s career and was intended to provide an endowment on retirement; it was intended as an appreciation for services past rather than an encouragement for services to be rendered.81 |
By contrast, in Moorhouse v Dooland82 the Revenue succeeded. Dooland was a professional cricketer employed by East Lancashire. Under club rules he was entitled to talent money of one guinea every time he scored 50 runs or more, took six wickets or scored a hat-trick. In the 1950 and 1951 seasons Dooland qualified for talent money, and |