| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart
''Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart'' [1992] UKHL 3, is a landmark decision of the House of Lords on the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. The court established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the legislation. Before this ruling, such an action would have been seen as a breach of parliamentary privilege.〔Littleboy & Kelly (2005) p. 1〕
Hart and nine others were teachers at Malvern College who benefited from a "concessionary fee" scheme that allowed their children to be educated at the college for one fifth of the normal fees of a pupil. The Inland Revenue attempted to tax this benefit based on the Finance Act 1976. There was a dispute over the correct interpretation of the Act. The Special Commissioners charged with assessing the tax found in favour of Hart, but both the High Court of Justice and Court of Appeal of England and Wales found in favour of the Inland Revenue. The case then went to the House of Lords, which, making use of statements in Parliament as recorded in ''Hansard'', found in favour of Hart. Lord Mackay, dissenting, argued that ''Hansard'' should not be considered admissible evidence because of the time and expense involved in a lawyer having to look up every debate and discussion on a particular statute when giving legal advice or preparing a case.
The decision met with a mixed reception. While judges cautiously accepted the judgment, some legal academics argued that it violated rules of evidence, damaged the separation of powers between the executive and Parliament and caused additional expense in cases. The decision was subjected to an assault by Lord Steyn in his Hart Lecture, delivered on 16 May 2000 and titled "''Pepper v Hart'': A Re-examination", in which he disputed exactly what the House of Lords had meant by their decision and also attacked the logic and legal theory behind it. Since Lord Steyn's lecture, several judicial decisions have limited the use of ''Pepper'' by the courts; the result of these changes, according to Stefan Vogenauer, is that "the scope of ''Pepper v Hart'' has been reduced to such an extent that the ruling has almost become meaningless".〔
==Facts==
Hart and nine others were teachers at Malvern College, where from 1983 to 1986 they took advantage of a "concessionary fee" scheme, which allowed their children to be educated at rates one fifth of those paid by other pupils. They disputed the amount of tax they had to pay under the 1976 Finance Act,〔Nyman (1993) p. 69〕 Section 63 of which said that: The Inland Revenue, attempting to tax this benefit, argued that the "cost" of the benefit meant an average of the cost of providing it; if there were 100 pupils at a school that cost £1,000,000 a year to run, the "cost" per pupil was £10,000. Hart and his fellow teachers disputed this and argued that it was instead marginal cost, saying that other than food, stationery, laundry and similar there was no cost to the school due to the children's presence that would not be there already.〔Davies (1993) p. 172〕 The Special Commissioners (an appellate body for income tax claims),〔Bradley (2007) p. 364〕 ruling in favour of Hart, noted that not only was the school not full to capacity, with the teachers' children having no impact on waiting lists, but that the "concessionary fee" covered all costs incurred by the school in the course of educating those particular pupils.〔Dyson (1990) p. 122〕 It was found, however, that during debate on the Finance Act, ministers had made statements in the House of Commons which supported the idea that such "benefits" should be excluded from tax.〔Dyson (1990) p. 123〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|