Pepper v. Hart case brief summary, UK (1990)
a) Question
regarding the interpretation of a statute outlining the appropriate
taxation for teachers whose children attend their place of employment
for free. The court was debating whether the use legislative history to
determine the meaning of the statutory language. The court held,
changing years of practice, that they would use the reports from
Parliament regarding this statute to come to a decision in the case.
b) The
Finance Act of 1976 – “cash equivalent”, § 63(2) the cost of the
benefit is the amount of any expense incurred in or in connection with
its provision, and includes a proper proportion of any expense relating
partly to the budget and partly to other matters
(1) 61(1)(b) cash equivalent of benefit (= tuition) à
(2) 63(b) cost of benefit (= average) à
(3) 63(2) expense to employer incurred (= marginal cost)
(a) Actual?
(b) Proportional?
c) Just how do we ascertain true meaning?
(1) Primary v. secondary meaning
d) Intent?
(1) Precedent-based argument
(2) Reasonable expectations
(3) Cost benefit
(4) Efficiency
(5) Presumptions
(6) Fairness
No comments:
Post a Comment