193 / 244
solicitor he was, nevertheless, entitled to interest
on the capital sum from the date of the notice to
redeem (14th December, 1943) until the date of
payment off. But he was not entitled to the general
costs o f the action, for the delay in the redemption
was entirely due to his own wrong claim. Each
party would have to bear their own costs.
(Barrett
v.
Gough, Thomas (No. 3) 1951 T.L.R.
Vol. 1 1 . 106.)
ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES
Rule 3 of the Rules applicable to Cases I and II
of Schedule D to the Income Tax Act, 1918,
provide :—
“ In computing the amount o f . . . profits . . .
no sum shall be deducted in respect o f :
(a)
any
disbursements or expenses, not being money
wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for
the purposes of the . . . profession . . .”
For expenses to be laid out “ wholly and
exclusively ” for the purpose o f a profession within
the meaning o f the above rule, they do not have to
be necessary for the purposes o f the profession,
provided they are laid out wholly for that purpose
and for no other.
Mr. Dulanty, Solicitor, a partner in the plaintiff
firm, had expended a sum o f £539 in the year
1949-50 in entertaining clients to lunch or dinner
on occasions when professional advice was given
and charged for in the ordinary way. The firm’s
office was in the city, and some o f the entertaining
vstes done at a neighbouring restaurant. A number
o f clients resided in the West End o f London, and
they were entertained in that district. It was
generally convenient for the partners to hold
personal consultations at lunch time, as they were
then free for general work in the office at other
times. The Special Commissioners disallowed the
claim that this sum of £539 should be deducted as
business expenses, and plaintiffs appealed to the
High Court.
H
eld
by Roxburgh,
J.
that the expenses thus
incurred by solicitors in entertaining clients at
meals for the purpose o f professional interviews
in respect o f which fees are charged, and at which
no persons are present except the solicitor and the
clients, are not excluded as deductions by the Rule.
The expense is none the less deductible, because the
solicitor’s own lunch is included, since his attendance
is an essential part o f the transaction.
Per Roxburgh J
.—Expenditure on hospitality,
coupled with advice for which a fee is charged,
looks to me like expenditure for a professional
purpose. The partner who attended and lunched
was an essential element in the transaction. The
advice could not have been given, and the fee
could not have been earned if the partner had not
attended. Obviously, if the client is to be given
lunch, business would not be promoted if the
partner should sit by eating and drinking nothing.
The appeal should be allowed, and the assessment
should be reduced by the sum claimed, £539.
(Bentley, Stokes & Lawless
v.
Beeson, 1951
T .L.R . Vol. II 592.)
EXAMINATION RESULTS
A
t
examinations held on the 28th and 29th days of
September under the Legal Practitioners (Qualifica
tion) Act, 1929, the following passed the
examinations :—
First Examination in Irish
Owen Binchy, John Francis Buckley, John
Paschal Dillon, Naoise P. Gantly, Gabriel F.
Haughton, Thomas Barrington Jellett, Patrick
Bernard Kelly, James F. Kenny, Timothy Bernard
McEniry, Frank Mahony, George V. Maloney,
Thomas Aloysius Maloney, John Molan, Anthony
Gerard Moylan, Walter B. O’Donoghue, Catherine
Mary Ryar Patrick J. M. Ryan, Michael Aloysius
Staines, Diarmuid Proinsias Teevan, Desmond Paul
Windle.
Twenty-five candidates entered; 20 passed;
5 failed.
Second Examination in Irish
Henry W. Burleigh, Michael Joseph Harnett,
John V . Kelly, Thomas P. Kelly, Edward P. King,
John Brendan O’Flynn, Patrick J. O’Gara, David
R. Pigot.
Twelve candidates entered ; 8 passed ; 4 failed.
The remaining candidates are postponed.
Intermediate Examination
At the Intermediate Examination for apprentices
to solicitors, held on ioth and n th days o f Sep
tember, the following passed the examination : -
Passedwith Merit
: i. Donal B. O’Connell. 2. Nor-
bert P. Colbert. 3. Bryan J. Maguire. 4. Desmond
T. Breen. 5. Mary E. Reihill. 6. Patrick F. Treacy.
Passed:
Ignatius F. Branigan, Gerald B. Coulter,
Martin J. Curran, Edward J. Dillon, Charles W. R.
Fay, Patrick C. Kelly, Finbarr McCarthy, John
M. O’Connor, John E. Russell, Dominic B. Spel-
man, Francis A. Walsh, Elizabeth M. Wright.
Twenty-seven candidates entered, 18 passed, 8
failed, 1 did not attend.
The remaining candidates are postponed.
43