§ 34. Sir H. Butcherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the case of Wilkins, Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes v. Rogerson in which judgments have been given in the Chancery Division and the Court of Appeal; why this was taken to the courts, in view of the fact that the original decision of the Special Commissioners was confirmed both in the Chancery Division and the Court of Appeal; and how much were the costs, including those of Mr. Rogerson, incurred by the Crown in connection with the High Court proceedings.
§ Sir E. BoyleYes, Sir. The Inland Revenue took this case to the courts because an important point of law was involved. The Crown's costs, including those of Mr. Rogerson, were about £900.
§ Sir H. ButcherSince a person earning £2,000 a year, or a director, however limited his salary, is in no way affected, what is the purpose of taking an ordinary wage earner through the courts on a matter of £5.
§ Sir E. BoyleIn fact, this was a test case on what was felt to be a novel and quite important point. In his judgment Lord Justice Donovan said:
The case wears an aspect of triviality which is deceptive.I do not think that it was an unimportant case.