IRC v. Garvin, [1981] 1 WLR 793 (HL)

In obiter dicta, Lord Russell of Killowen "venture[d] to doubt the ability of the Crown ... having levied a tax on the basis that the transaction was a dealing in capital, then to assert that it can indirectly, by counteraction be treated as giving rise to taxable income."

It was stated, obiter, that "I can see a powerful argument being mounted to the effect that, if a receipt falls to be treated as income and taxed as such under one code, it must, by necessary implication, be exempt from liability to taxation as a capital receipt under another code". (Lord Bridge)