Section 718: Excluded annuities
2754.This section rewrites section 657(2) of ICTA, which sets out the annuities to which section 656 of ICTA does not apply. Not all of the annuities listed in section 657(2) of ICTA are specified. Some of the annuities referred to in section 657(2) of ICTA are excluded from the exemption in section 717 by the combined effect of the priority provisions (see section 366(3) which gives ITEPA charging priority over Part 4 of this Act) and subsection (1) of section 717. Section 717(1) only exempts from income tax annuity payments charged to tax under Chapter 7 of Part 4 of this Act. So if the annuity payments are not charged to tax under Chapter 7 of Part 4 of this Act they cannot benefit from the exemption in this Chapter. It follows that the annuity payments made under the annuities set out in section 657(2) of ICTA which are not charged to tax under Chapter 7 of Part 4 of this Act do not need to be mentioned. Section 718 therefore lists only those annuity payments made under annuities excluded by section 657(2) of ICTA and charged to tax under Chapter 7 of Part 4 of this Act.
2755.Additionally, section 657(2)(a) of ICTA is not rewritten. That section provides that section 656 does not apply to:
“any annuity which would, apart from that section, be treated for the purposes of the provisions of the Tax Acts relating to tax on annuities and other annual payments as consisting to any extent in the payment or repayment of a capital sum.”
2756.Section 657(2)(a) appears to be designed to exclude “annuity” payments which, on the analysis in Perrin v Dickson (1924), 14 TC 608 CA, represent interest together with capital repayments. This case concerned a contract under which, in return for a series of annual premiums, an assurance society undertook to pay an “annuity” for seven years if a named individual should live that long. In the event of the individual’s death the total amount of the premiums paid, without any interest, less any amount paid by way of “annuity”, was to be repaid. The individual survived and it was held in the Court of Appeal that the payments received did not constitute an annuity for income tax purposes. Tax was chargeable only on so much of the payments as constituted interest on the original payments.
2757.On a proper analysis, however, the payments are not really “annuity” at all, even if that is what they were called. And if contracts of the type considered in Perrin v Dickson do not give rise to annual payments it is difficult to see what purpose section 657(2)(a) of ICTA is intended to serve.
2758.No true annuity which would need to be excluded in this way from the relief provided by section 656 has been discovered. Section 656(2)(a) of ICTA is otiose and has therefore been dropped.
