The taxpayers who were a director of a leather manufacturing company and an employee of a spinning firm, purchased a complete cotton spinning plant with a view to selling it as quickly as possible at a profit but, in the event, disposed of the plant piecemeal over the following two years at a gain.
In finding that the transaction was on income account as an adventure in the nature of trade, Lord Radcliffe noted that they had no intention of using the machinery as an income-producing asset, or of buying it to consume it or for the pleasure of enjoyment. It was not relevant that the plant was not advertised for sale (why should they do so if the sale of the plant could be achieved without advertising); even if no "work had been done on the maturing the asset to be sold", there was "no reason why a dealer should do more work in making his plant saleable than the purposes of sale required"; and even if the taxpayers did not have any special skill which placed them in an advantageous position for the purposes of the transaction, "the members of a commercial community do not need much instruction in the principles and possibility of dealing and ... given the opportunity, the existence or non-existence of special skill is of no significance whatever" (p. 230). Accordingly, this was "a commercial deal in second-hand plant" (p. 230).