| 10/2/2012 |
HOME
FSS
Downloads
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case No. 3/51 |
Decided: 5 March, 1951 |
   |
|
Words and expressions used in the Income Tax Act which are known to the law of Malta shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Maltese law - article 2(2), Income Tax Act; interpretation of the word "adopted" - article 22(1)(b), now repealed, Income Tax Act; fiscal law is to be interpreted in a restrictive sense
|
Appellant claimed a personal deduction in respect of an adopted child. He maintained that the word "adopted" in article 22(1)(b) should be given a wider and more liberal interpretation than the strictly "legally adopted" as meant by the Civil Code. Besides he had wanted to legally adopt the child were it not for the difference between his age and hers.
The Board, basing itself on the decision in case no. 1/51 held that the word "adopted" was to be interpreted according to the Civil Code. Words and expressions used in the Income Tax Act which are known to the law of Malta shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Maltese law. There was no doubt that according to Maltese law the word "adopted" referred only to children who are adopted according to the legal formalities. Consequently, appellant was not allowed the deduction.
Another argument against taxpayer's wide interpretation of the word can be found in article 22(1)(b) itself. The words "or a child being orphan of the father and relative of the individual or of the individual's spouse who was ... wholly maintained by the individual" would have been superfluous if the word "adopted" were to be interpreted as widely as taxpayer wanted.
The Board also held that fiscal laws are to be interpreted restrictively, according to the principle that, all things being equal, the interests of common good should prevail over private or personal ones.
|
|
|
|
|