Section 368: Territorial scope of Part 4 charges
1467.This section provides that income within Part 4 of this Act is only charged to tax if it is from the United Kingdom or, if from outside the United Kingdom, it arises to a UK resident. It is based on section 18(1) of ICTA.
1468.Under section 18(1)(a) of ICTA income from any kind of property arising to a resident of the United Kingdom is chargeable to tax wherever that property is situated, while such income is chargeable on a non-resident only when it is from property within the United Kingdom.
1469.Section 18(1)(b) of ICTA, which charges tax in respect of “all interest of money, annuities and other annual profits or gains not charged under Schedule A or ITEPA and not specially exempted from tax”, does not mention the residence status of the person on whom the income or profits are chargeable.
1470.The exact scope of section 18(1)(b) of ICTA and its relation to the rules in section 18(1)(a) of ICTA is not entirely clear. Section 18(1) of ICTA appeared in broadly its present form in the Income Tax Act 1853, borrowing wording from the Income Tax Act 1842. The 1842 Act is famously impenetrable but the provisions from which the words have been borrowed (sections 100 and 102) may be read as having territorial restrictions. It is difficult to believe that the 1853 provision that is now section 18(1)(b) of ICTA was not intended to share the same territorial restrictions as the provision that is now section 18(1)(a) of ICTA.
1471.Profits charged under Schedule D Case VI may fall within section 18(1)(a) of ICTA where they represent income from any kind of property. But the Income Tax Acts also charge certain specific profits or gains, which would not otherwise be chargeable to income tax, under Case VI and when they are not specified as income from property they fall more comfortably under section 18(1)(b) of ICTA as “annual profits or gains”.
1472.In practice the same territorial restrictions are applied to Case VI profits falling within section 18(1)(b) of ICTA as within section 18(1)(a) of ICTA. This is both by analogy with the Case VI charge on income as well as under a general rule of law on territoriality mentioned below.
1473.Where non-schedular charges do not contain a territorial restriction, in practice the same territorial restrictions are applied as for section 18(1)(a) of ICTA. Again, this is both by analogy with the schedular charges and under a general rule of law on territoriality.
1474.Guidance is, however, available from case law. Since Colquhoun v Brooks (1889), 2 TC 490 HL the courts have followed Lord Herschell’s judgement that (page 499):
“The Income Tax Acts, however, themselves impose a territorial limit, either that from which the taxable income is derived must be situate in the United Kingdom or the person whose income is to be taxed must be resident there.”
1475.Whether Lord Herschell’s words referred to the statutory rules of the time or to a general statement of the law, it is as the latter that they have been subsequently applied by the courts. For example in Perry v Astor (1935), 19 TC 255 HL Lord Russell of Killowen states (page 280):
“There must, of course, be the necessary limitation which is inherent in all our Income Tax legislation, namely, that what is taxed under or by virtue of this provision can only be either (1) income which is here, or (2) income of a person resident here.”
1476.Additionally there is the general principle of United Kingdom law that, unless the contrary intention appears, an enactment is taken as not applying to matters outside the United Kingdom.
1477.The Schedule F charge on dividends and other distributions from UK companies contains its own territorial restriction, namely where the income arises from a company resident in the United Kingdom.
1478.Subsections (1) and (2) are drafted in terms of the “source” of the income. Although section 18 of ICTA refers to profits or gains from “property”, the usual statutory term elsewhere in the Income Tax Acts and in case law for the same concept is “source” and this has been adopted as the more familiar and modern term.
1479.However, while the term “source” may apply to the majority of receipts chargeable to income tax it does not apply to all such receipts. “Source” is something from which income arises and not all sums charged to income tax are by nature income. “Source” may not be the appropriate term where the amount charged to tax represents a profit on a transaction which is not by nature income and would not be charged to income tax without a specific charge. Indeed, the chargeable profit may arise on the disposal of an income source. This restricted meaning of “source” is supported by Lord Hoffmann’s judgement in Walker v Centaur Clothes Group Ltd (2000), 72 TC 379(7) HL and a more detailed discussion of this topic may be found in the commentary on Chapter 1 of Part 8 of this Act.
1480.It has therefore been necessary to consider how to express the territorial scope in cases where there is no natural source of income.
1481.Subsection (3) is broadly worded to catch such income. Where the connection such income has to the United Kingdom is comparable to the connection that income with a source in the United Kingdom has to the United Kingdom, then it is treated for the purposes of this section as income from a source in the United Kingdom.
STC [2000] 324
