GALE,
J.:—After
reading,
and
in
most
instances
rereading,
all
the
cases
cited,
and
many
others,
I
have
come
to
the
conclusion
that
the
questions
presented
to
the
Court
in
this
matter
ought
to
be
answered
in
such
a
way
as
to
indicate
that
the
sums.-received
by
the
trustees
upon
the
redemption
of
the
preference
shares
of
Mills
Bros.
Ltd.,
to
which
detailed
reference
will
be
made
later,
represent
income
in
the
hands
of
the
trustee
for
the
purpose
of
administering
the
trusts
involved.
My
decision
flows
from
a
conviction
that
this
case
is
governed
by
the
effect
of
the
judgment
in
Ke
Fleck,
[1952]
2
D.L.R.
at
page
658;
[1952]
C.T.C.
196
affirmed
[1952],
2
D.L.R.
at
page
664;
[1952]
C.T.C.
205,
which
to-day
express
the
law
of
this
Province
upon
the
subject-matter
of
this
motion.
The
late
Stanley
Mills
died
on
January
20,
1938,
and
shortly
thereafter
letters
probate
of
his
last
will
and
testament
and
codicil
were
granted
to
the
above-mentioned
trust
company,
the
executor
and
trustee
therein
named.
At
the
date
of
his
death
the
late
Mr.
Mills
was
the
owner
of
3,331
shares
of
the
capital
stock
of
Mills
Bros.
Ltd.,
a
private
company
incorporated
under
the
Dominion
Companies
Act.
Those
shares
had
a
par
value
of
$100
each
and
formed
part
of
the
total
issued
and
fully-paid
share
capital
of
the
company
consisting
of
10,000
shares.
Under
the
provisions
of
the
will
the
trust
company
was
directed
to
hold
those
shares
in
trust
to
pay
out
of
the
income
arising
therefrom
an
annuity
in
favour
of
the
widow
of
the
testator
and
to
pay
the
remainder
of
such
income
in
designated
proportions
to
several
branches
of
the
Victorian
Order
of
Nurses.
The
will
also
directed
that
in
certain
events
which
have
not
yet
come
to
pass,
and
may
never
occur,
the
Victorian
Order
of
Nurses
would
cease
to
be
entitled
to
receive
the
income,
which
would
thereafter
be
payable
to
other
charitable
institutions.
The
trustee
was
empowered
to
hold
the
shares
of
Mills
Bros.
Ltd.
so
long
as
it
deemed
advisable
and
in
the
exercise
of
such
discretion
those
shares
have
been.
retained.
By
the
end
of
1949
the
company
had
on
hand
accumulated
surplus
profits
in
an
amount
in
excess
of
$500,000.
On
December
20,
1950,
a
special
meeting
of
the
shareholders
of
Mills
Bros.
Ltd.
was
held,
at
which
the
shareholders
approved
of
a
resolution
of
the
directors
that
the
company
elect
to
pay
a
tax
of
15%
on
its
undistributed
income
as
at
the
end
of
its
1949
taxation
year
under
the
provisions
of
Section
95A
(1),
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
1948
c.
52.
Accompanying
the
notice
calling
such
meeting
was
the
following
letter
signed
by
the
president
of
the
company,
and
dated
December
1,
1950:
11
To
the
Shareholders
of
Mills
Bros.
Limited
:
“I
enclose
this
letter
with
a
Notice
of
a
Special
General
Meeting
of
the
Shareholders
of
the
Company
so
that
you
may
be
apprised
of
the
actions
taken
by
your
Board
requesting
the
approval
of
the
Resolution
which
was
passed
by
the
Directors
of
this
Company
on
the
Twenty-Third
day
of
November,
1950.
“In
March,
1950,
an
amendment
to
the
Income
Tax
Act
was
passed
(See.
95A)
which
provides
that
Companies
such
as
ours
may
pay
a
Special
Tax
of
15%
on
undistributed
income
on
hand
at
December
3lst,
1949.
“In
the
intervening
months
there
has
been
a
war
in
Korea
and
an
accelerated
rearmament
program
in
Canada
and
the
U.S.A.
with
the
result
that
the
general
feeling
is
that
taxes
are
going
to
be
heavier
to
support
these
expenditures.
‘‘Specifically
the
present
privileges
extended
to
Private
Companies
within
the
past
year
to
get
out
their
undistributed
surpluses,
may
become
more
expensive
or
withdrawn
entirely
at
the
next
budget.
The
terms
of
such
relief
at
present
are
not
as
generous
as
those
that
were
formerly
available
and
the
pres-
ent
relief
may
well
be
supplanted
by
more
stringent
terms
in
the
near
future.
Any
such
change
in
that
direction
could
be
very
expensive
to
the
shareholders
of
this
Company.
‘‘The
plan
you
are
asked
to
approve
will
be
for
the
Company
to
pay
the
15%
of
tax
by
December
31st,
1950,
and
thus
qualify
the
Company
for
future
tax
free
distributions.
‘“We
feel
sure
you
will
be
gratified
to
know
that
the
physical
well-being
of
your
Company
is
such
that
we
can
afford
to
take
advantage
of
such
a
tax
privilege
as
this
without
detriment
to
current
operations.
We
consider
it
as
good
news
to
our
shareholders
and
which
will
be
favourably
received.
“Will
you
kindly
return
your
proxy
form
in
case
you
are
unable
to
attend.”
That
letter
is
of
prime
importance
in
a
consideration
of
this
matter.
Pursuant
to
the
resolution
of
December
20,
1950,
the
company
did
pay
the
said
tax
of
15%
amounting
to
$126,300.59,
on
its
undistributed
income
of
$842,003.94,
calculated
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
Section
73A(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
and
the
company
was
then
left
with
tax-paid
accumulated
income
as
of
the
end
of
its
1949
fiscal
year
of
$715,703.35.
Subsequently
that
accumulated
income
was
dealt
with
by
the
company.
A
notice
in
this
form
was
sent
out
to
the
shareholders
of
the
company
on
May
15,
1951
:
“NOTICE
“Special
GENERAL
MEETING
OF
SHAREHOLDERS
“Please
take
notice
that
a
Special
General
Meeting
of
the
shareholders
of
Mills
Bros.
Limited
will
be
held
on
the
5th
day
of
June,
1951,
at
10
a.m.,
E.D.S.T.,
at
the
head
office
of
the
Company,
Imperial
Building,
25
Hughson
Street
South,
Hamilton,
Ontario.
“The
business
before
the
meeting
will
be:
(a)
To
consider
and
if
deemed
advisable
sanction
and
confirm
By-Law
No.
23
of
the
Company
passed
by
the
Directors
on
the
8th
day
of
May,
1951,
authorizing
an
application
for
Supplementary
Letters
Patent
subdividing
the
authorized
and
issued
ten
thousand
(10,000)
shares
of
the
capital
stock
of
the
Company
having
a
par
value
of
One
Hundred
Dollars
$(100.00)
each
into
one
hundred
thousand
(100,000)
shares
having
a
par
value
of
Ten
Dollars
($10.00)
each
and
increasing
the
capital
of
the
Company
by
the
creation
of
one
hundred
thousand
(100,000)
four
per
centum
(4%)
non-cumulative
redeemable
preference
shares
having
a
par
value
of
Ten
Dollars
($10.00)
each,
“(b)
To
consider
and
if
deemed
advisable
sanction
and
confirm
By-Law
No.
24
of
the
Company
passed
by
the
Directors
on
the
8th
day
of
May,
1951,
being
a
by-law
empowering
the
Directors
of
the
Company
to
declare
stock
dividends
and
to
issue
therefor
shares
of
the
Company
fully
paid
and
nonassessable,
and
“
(c)
To
transact
such
other
business
as
may
properly
come
before
the
meeting.”
At
the
special
general
meeting
of
June
5,
1951,
the
company
did
two
things.
In
the
first
place
the
shareholders
sanctioned
By-law
23
of
the
company
passed
by
its
directors
authorizing
an
application
for
supplementary
letters
patent
subdividing
the
authorized
and
issued
10,000
shares
of
the
capital
stock
of
the
company
of
a
par
value
of
$100
each
and
increasing
the
capital
of
the
company
by
the
creation
of
100,000
4%
non-cumulative
redeemable
preference
shares
having
a
par
value
of
$10
each,
and,
secondly,
the
shareholders
confirmed
By-law
24
of
the
company
passed
by
the
directors
which
was
in
this
form:
“By-Law
No.
24
Being
a
by-law
empowering
the
Directors
to
declare
stock
dividends.
“Now
THEREFORE
BE
IT
ENACTED
AND
IT
IS
HEREBY
ENACTED
as
by-law
No.
24
of
Mills
Bros.
Limited
(hereinafter
called
the
‘Company’)
that:
fully
declare
payable
in
money
the
Directors
may
declare
a
stock
dividend
and
issue
therefor
shares
of
the
Company
fully
paid
and
non-assessable.
For
the
amount
of
any
dividend
which
the
Directors
may
law-
Enacted
this
8th
day
of
May,
A.D.
1951.”
On
July
30,
1951,
supplementary
letters
patent
were
issued
to
the
company
pursuant
to
the
application
made
under
the
first
of
the
two
last-mentioned
resolutions.
Then
on
October
23,
1951,
the
Board
of
Directors
of
the
company
passed
the
following
resolution
:
‘
‘
RESOLUTION
RE
Stock
DIVIDEND
‘“
WHEREAS
By-law
No.
24
which
was
passed
by
the
directors
on
the
8th
day
of
May,
1951,
and
was
confirmed
by
the
share-
holders
in
meeting
duly
convened,
authorizes
the
directors
to
issue
fully
paid
shares
for
the
amount
of
any
dividend
that
the
directors
may
lawfully
declare
payable
in
money
;
“
And
WHEREAS
by
supplementary
letters
patent
bearing
date
the
30th
day
of
July,
1951,
the
authorized
capital
of
the
Company
was
subdivided
and
increased
as
follows
:—
4
'The
capital
stock
of
the
Company
shall
be
two
million
dollars
divided
into
one
hundred
thousand
four
per
cent
non-
cumulative
redeemable
preference
shares
and
one
hundred
thousand
common
shares,
all
of
the
par
value
of
ten
dollars
each
;
"And
WHEREAS
pursuant
to
the
authority
of
said
by-law
the
directors
have
decided
to
issue
71,564
of
the
preference
shares
authorized
by
the
supplementary
letters
patent
as
fully
paid
and
non-assessable
shares
as
a
dividend
;
"Now
BE
it
RESOLVED
that
a
dividend
be
and
the
same
is
hereby
declared
on
the
isued
shares
of
the
common
stock
of
the
Company
in
the
form
of
an
issue
of
preference
shares
of
the
Company
of
an
aggregate
par
value
of
$715,640.00
;
"Be
IT
FURTHER
RESOLVED
that
in
appropriating
said
shares
to
said
dividend,
$715,640.00
of
the
tax
paid
undistributed
income
on
hand
of
the
Company
standing
on
the
books
of
the
Company
be
capitalized
and
appropriated
to
payment
in
full
of
said
71,564
preference
shares
appropriated
for
said
stock
dividend
;
'
Be
it
FURTHER
RESOLVED
that
contemporaneously
with
said
appropriation
and
capitalization
of
said
$715,640.00
of
said
undistributed
income,
there
be
issued
and
allotted
the
said
71,564
preference
shares
of
the
Company
of
the
par
value
of
ten
dollars
($10)
each
as
fully
paid
and
non-assessable
shares
to
the
holders
of
record
of
the
outstanding
common
shares
of
the
Company
in
proportion
to
the
shares
held
by
them
respectively
at
the
close
of
business
on
the
31st
day
of
October,
1951,
said
preference
shares
to
rank
for
dividends
from
and
after
the
1st
day
of
November,
1951;
"Be
it
FURTHER
RESOLVED
that
the
Company
take
cognizance
of
any
waivers
filed
by
shareholders
with
respect
to
receipt
of
said
stock
dividend
and
appropriate
and
distribute
any
shares
affected
by
such
waivers
among
or
to
shareholders
who
have
not
filed
any
such
waiver,
so
that
persons
holding
qualification
shares
need
not
be
obliged
to
receive
and
account
for
any
shares
to
be
issued
as
a
stock
dividend.”
Following
enactment
of
this
resolution,
there
was
subsequently
issued
by
the
company
to
the
trustee
of
this
estate
a
certificate
(or
certificates)
for
23,840
4%
non-cumulative
redeemable
preference
shares
of
the
company.
On
the
same
day,
namely,
October
23,
1951,
the
Board
passed
this
resolution
:
“Resolution
RESPECTING
REDEMPTION
OF
PREFERENCE
SHARES
“Whereas
there
are
now
issued
and
outstanding
as
fully
paid
and
non-assessable
71,564
4%
non-cumulative
redeemable
preference
shares
of
the
par
value
of
ten
dollars
($10)
each;
and
“Whereas
the
Directors
have
declared
a
dividend
on
such
4%
non-cumulative
redeemable
preference
shares
at
the
rate
of
4%
per
annum
from
November
1st,
1951,
for
the
period
of
one
month,
such
dividend
to
be
payable
on
December
1st,
1951,
to
the
Shareholders
of
record
as
of
the
close
of
business
October
31st,
1951
;
and
‘“
WHEREAS
it
is
expedient
that
50,000
if
such
issued
and
outstanding
4%
non-cumulative
redeemable
preference
shares
should
be
redeemed
as
hereinafter
mentioned
;
“Now
THEREFORE
be
it
RESOLVED
THAT
THE
Company
do
redeem,
on
the
1st
day
of
December,
1951,
50,000
of
its
4%
non-
cumulative
redeemable
preference
shares
of
the
par
value
of
ten
dollars
($10)
each
by
payment
for
each
of
such
shares
of
ten
dollars
($10)
together
with
the
sum
of
.314
cents
per
share,
being
a
dividend
at
the
rate
of
4%
per
annum
for
the
period
from
November
1st,
1951
to
the
date
fixed
for
redemption
of
the
said
shares;
and
that
a
least
thirty
(80)
days’
notice
in
writing
be
given
to
each
of
the
persons
who
at
the
date
of
the
giving
of
such
notice
are
the
registered
holders
of
such
shares,
of
the
intention
of
the
Company
to
redeem
the
same,
such
notice
to
be
given
by
the
Secretary
of
the
Company,
in
the
manner,
and
containing
the
information,
required
by
the
provisions
of
the
supplementary
letters
patent
of
the
Company,
and
further
that
the
redemption
moneys
be
paid
in
accordance
with
such
provisions
;
‘
4
And
BE
it
FURTHER
RESOLVED
that
the
officers
of
the
Company
be
and
they
are
hereby
authorized
to
take
all
such
steps
and
execute
all
documents
which
may
be
necessary
or
desirable
for
the
purpose
of
effecting
such
redemption.”’
Later,
on
January
15,
1952,
the
directors
of
the
Company,
by
similar
resolution,
made
provision
for
redemption
of
the
out-
standing
redeemable
preference
shares
on
April
1,
1952,
and
at
the
same
time
stipulated
that
the
shareholders
were
also
to
be
paid
the
sum
of
30c
per
share
by
way
of
a
dividend.
Under
the
authority
of
the
last
two
resolutions
16,655
of
the
preference
shares
issued
to
the
trustee
were
called
for
redemption
on
December
1,
1951,
and
the
trustee,
in
exchange
therefor,
received
$167,105.16,
and
on
April
1,
1952,
the
balance
of
those
shares
were
redeemed,
at
which
time
the
trustee
received
the
further
sum
of
$93,405.
The
Court
is
asked
for
its
advice
upon
these
two
questions
:
“1.
Whether
upon
the
true
construction
of
the
said
Will
and
in
the
events
which
have
happened
the
sum
of
$166,550.00,
being
the
sum
(exclusive
of
the
amount
representing
accrued
dividends)
received
by
the
Trustee
upon
the
redemption
of
16,655
4%
Non-Cumulative
Redeemable
Preference
Shares
of
Mills
Bros.
Limited
which
were
issued
and
received
as
a
stock
dividend
by
the
said
Company
to
the
Trustee,
is
income
or
corpus
in
the
hands
of
the
Trustee
for
the
purpose
of
administering
the
said
Trust.
“2.
Whether
upon
the
true
construction
of
the
said
Will
and
in
the
events
which
have
happened
the
remaining
7,185
4%
Non-Cumulative
Redeemable
Preference
Shares
of
Mills
Bros.
Limited,
which
were
issued
and
received
as
a
stock
dividend
to
the
Trustee,
and
not
yet
redeemed
by
the
Company,
are
income
or
corpus
in
the
hands
of
the
Trustee
for
the
purpose
of
administering
the
said
Trust.’’
The
second
question
was,
of
course,
phrased
before
the
shares
with
which
it
is
concerned
were
redeemed
and,
therefore,
is
not
now
entirely
appropriate.
The
authorities
on
matters
of
this
kind
are
numerous
and,
if
I
may
say
so,
frequently
discordant.
Reconciliation
of
what
is
contained
in
many
of
them
is
not
easily
attained
but
this
much
can
be
said:
whether
shares
which
come
into
the
hands
of
trustees
in
circumstances
such
as
I
have
outlined
above
are
received
as
capital
or
income
depends
upon
the
intention
of
the
company
effecting
delivery
of
those
shares.
What
that
intention
was
is
a
question
of
fact
in
each
instance
and
when
it
has
been
ascertained
it
is
binding
upon
all
persons
interested
in
the
trusts.
If
I
correctly
apprehend
what
was
decided
in
Bouch
v.
Sproule
(1887),
12
App.
Cas.
385,
and
in
the
cases
which
follow
it,
including
Re
Fleck,
[1952]
2
D.L.R.
657
;
[1952]
C.T.C.
196,
it
is
that
whatever
may
be
the
means
used
by
a
company
to
transmit
accumulated
profits
to
its
shareholders,
the
answer
to
the
question
whether
those
profits
reach
the
shareholders
as
income
or
capital
is
to
be
found
not
only
in
the
form
of
the
transaction,
but
by
determining
its
substance.
That
principle
has
been
described
in
many
ways,
but
I
believe
that
it
is
essentially
a
question
of
fact
in
each
case
as
to
what
has
been
the
company’s
decision
with
respect
to
the
ultimate
disposition
of
the
surplus.
If
a
company
decides
to
devote
the
accrued
income
to
capital
purposes,
any
shares
issued
by
reason
of
that
decision,
or
the
proceeds
thereof,
will
be
regarded
as
a
capital
accretion
to
the
shareholders
no
matter
what
process
is
employed
by
the
company
to
achieve
its
objective.
If,
on
the
contrary,
the
company
resolves
to
pass
the
surplus
income
over
to
its
shareholders
rather
than
to
blend
it
into
its
capital
fabric,
the
shareholders
will
be
deemed
to
receive
income
and
not
capital.
As
in
the
Fleck
case,
the
sole
and
fundamental
intention
of
this
company
was
to
distribute
the
tax-paid
accumulated
income
among
its
shareholders
in
such
a
way
as
to
relieve
them
from
the
burden
of
personal
income
tax.
No
other
logical
or
reasonable
construction
can
be
placed
upon
the
letter
of
December
1,
1950,
or
upon
the
steps
taken
thereafter
by
the
company.
The
rather
intricate
procedure
invoked
by
it
furnishes
further
incontrovertible
proof
of
that
intention
because
it
was
the
only
way
by
which
the
undistributed
income
could
reach
the
shareholders
as
income
without
rendering
them
liable
for
tax.
One
must
also
bear
in
mind
that
the
auditors’
statements
of
the
company
for
1949
and
for
1950
make
it
abundantly
clear
that
at
the
end
of
1949
the
company’s
financial
position
was
relatively
liquid
and
that
there
was
no
possible
reason
for
it
to
convert
the
accumulated
income
into
capital.
I
repeat,
therefore,
that
all
that
was
done
was
part
of
a
plan—a
perfectly
proper
and
legal
one—to
benefit
the
shareholders
by
paying
over
the
accumulated
surpluses
really
as
dividends
but
involving
a
form
of
capitalization
so
as
to
free
them
from
the
obligation
of
paying
personal
income
tax;
what
was
done
does
not
in
any
sense
suggest
an
intention
on
the
part
of
the
company
to
add
the
value
of
the
new
redeemable
preference
shares
to
its
capital
structure.
Accordingly,
the
essential
nature
of
the
transaction
was
to
transfer
income
resting
in
the
coffers
of
the
company
to
its
shareholders
and
the
situation
is,
therefore,
the
converse
of
that
which
was
presented
to
the
Courts
in
the
Bouch
case,
supra.
It
was
argued
on
behalf
of
the
remaindermen
that
the
process
of
capitalization
had
the
result
of
irrevocably
transforming
the
surplus
from
income
to
capital
which
could
not
thereafter
be
regarded
as
income
for
any
purpose.
This
argument
seems
to
be
supported
by
the
judgments
in
Re
Piercy,
[1907]
1
Ch.
289
at
p.
294;
Inland
Revenue
Commissioners
v.
Fisher’s
Executors,
[1926]
A.C.
395
at
p.
403;
Commissioners
of
Income-Tax,
Bengal
v.
Mercantile
Bank
of
India
Ltd.,
[1936]
A.C.
478;
Whitmore
v.
Commissioners
of
Inland
Revenue
(1925),
10
T.C.
645;
Re
Duff’s
Settlements,
[1951]
1
Ch.
923,
and
by
portions
of
the
judgments
in
Inland
Revenue
Commissioners
v.
Blott,
[1921]
2
A.C.
171,
and
Hill
v.
Permanent
Trustee
Co.
of
N.S.W.,
[1930]
A.C.
720,
but
a
perusal
of
the
appeal
book
and
memoranda
of
argument
filed
with
the
Court
of
Appeal
in
the
Fleck
case
indicates
that
the
proposition
was
raised
and
apparently
rejected
in
that
Court.
While
the
resolutions
and
proceedings
were
silent
as
to
any
such
incident,
the
Booth
Lumber
Co.
surplus
must
have
been
capitalized
momentarily,
and,
if
that
is
so,
the
Fleck
judgments
repudiate
the
contention
that
once
the
accumulated
income
has
been
changed
to
capital
even
to
effect
a
distribution
of
income,
that
conversion
arbitrarily
settles
the
quality
of
the
interest
passing
to
the
shareholders.
Counsel
then
invited
me
to
distinguish
this
case
from
the
Fleck
case
because
of
the
diversity
of
procedure
and
language
used
when
the
respective
plans
were
in
the
course
of
being
executed.
It
cannot
be
denied
that
the
technique
of
getting
the
moneys
into
the
hands
of
the
shareholders
was
not
by
any
means
the
same
in
each
instance,
but
in
view
of
my
conclusion
that
the
essential
purpose
of
both
companies
was
to
allow
the
shareholders
to
enjoy
the
undivided
surplus
income
as
such,
it
matters
not
that
procedural
differences
can
be
found.
Moreover,
I
believe
that
it
would
be
undesirable
and
perhaps
dangerous
to
search
for
and
attempt
to
establish
variations
of
method
in
other
cases
where
it
is
obvious
that
the
paramount
concern
of
the
company
involved
is
to
pass
accumulated
income
on
to
its
shareholders
by
issuing
redeemable
preferene
shares
for
the
single
purpose
of
freeing
those
shareholders
from
a
personal
tax
liability.
If
relatively
unimportant
differences
were
given
recognition,
uncertainty
would
result
and
in
almost
every
similar
situation
the
question
whether
moneys
received
by
trustees
were
income
or
capital
would
have
to
be
determined
by
the
Court
after
an
extensive
investigation.
What
is
conclusive
is
that
both
companies
decided
to
transfer
the
tax-paid
accumulated
income
as
such
to
their
respective
shareholders
and
they
adopted
a
similar,
though
not
entirely
identical,
method
of
ensuring
that
the
shareholders
would
not
be
required
to
pay
tax
on
receipt
of
that
income.
The
fact
that
redemption
was
effected
in
the
Fleck
case
im-
mediately
after
the
issue
of
the
preference
shares,
and
here
some
months
later,
does
not
alter
the
character
of
the
two
transactions.
On
this
point
reference
should
be
made
to
Aykroyd
v.
Inland
Revenue
Commissioners,
[1942]
2
All
E.R.
665.
The
Court
is
obliged
to
ascertain
the
decision
of
the
company
when
it
embarked
upon
the
plan
which
ultimately
causes
the
moneys
to
be
paid
to
its
shareholders
in
exchange
for
the
shares,
and
if
at
that
time
it
was
the
company’s
intention
to
release
those
moneys
to
its
shareholders
at
once
or
soon
thereafter,
then
I
am
of
the
opinion
that
what
the
shareholders
got
was
income.
No
purpose
whatever
would
be
served
by
examining
and
discussing
the
other
decided
cases
on
this
subject.
If
I
am
right
in
interpreting
Re
Fleck
as
I
have,
it
must
be
followed.
Both
questions
will
therefore
be
answered
by
a
declaration
that
the
sums
received
by
the
trustee
upon
the
redemption
of
the
company’s
preference
shares
represent
income
and
not
capital.
Costs
of
all
parties
are
to
be
taxed
on
a
solicitor-and-client
basis
and
are
to
be
paid
out
of
the
moneys
in
question
forthwith
after
taxation.
Declaration
accordingly.
Email this Content