»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp

1931 case � 18TC198

Point at issue

Miss Braithwaite claimed that various contracts between her and theatrical producers were contracts of service. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp Revenue contended that she was exercising her profession as an actress and was therefore correctly assessed under Case II of Schedule D.### Facts

Miss Braithwaite was an actress. She was a British subject resident in the UK and was engaged under various separate contracts to play parts in stage plays, perform in films, make a record etc.### Decision

It was held that Miss Braithwaite was exercising a profession and the profits were chargeable under Case II of Schedule D.### Commentary

In 1922 “employments� had been taken out of Schedule D and put into Schedule E alongside “offices�. Rowlatt J. considered that “employments� were something like “offices� and likened them to “posts�. His view was that where a professional person does not contemplate obtaining a post and staying in it, but contemplates a series of engagements and moving from one to the other, then each engagement is a mere engagement in the exercise of the profession. He thought that Miss Braithwaite was not making a contract with a producer for a post but that each engagement was an incident in the conduct of her profession.

However, Rowlatt J. also stated that it was quite possible to have both an employment and a profession at the same time.

This case should be contrasted with Fall v Hitchen (see ESM7055).