Pepper v. Hart, [1992] BTC 591 (HL)

A private college operated a concessionary scheme allowing sons of staff members to attend the school for 20% of the normal fees. In finding that this did not give rise to a taxable benefit under a section which referred to the "expense incurred in or in connection with" provision of in-house benefits, it was found that this section referred to the additional expenses attributable to each boy (such as food, stationery and laundry) rather than a proportion of all the running expenses of the school.

A statement by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the Finance Bill 1976 was being considered clearly indicated that a construction which otherwise would have been given by the House of Lords to section 63 of that Act did not accord with Parliament's intention. Lord Oliver stated (p. 599) that the Parliamentary history could be consulted as an aid to statutory construction:

"Only where the expression of the legislative intention is genuinely ambiguous or obscure or where a literal or prima facie construction leads to a manifest absurdity and where the difficulty can be resolved by a clear statement directed to the matter in issue."