Jewish National Fund Appeal Before House of Lords: Mr. Norman Bentwich Appearing for Fund Argues Res

Mr. Norman Bentwich, former Attorney-General for Palestine and at present Weizmann Professor of International Peace at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, appeared on behalf of the Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemeth Le Yisroel, Ltd.), this morning before the House of Lords (Lords Tomlin, Warrington, Thankerton, MacMillan and Wright) in the appeal Keren Kayemeth Le Yisroel, Ltd., versus the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, from an Order of the Court of Appeal (the Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices Lawrence and Slesser) dismissing an appeal by the Appellants from an Order of Mr. Justice Rowlatt, in the King’s Bench Division, affirming the decision of the Commissioners for the Special Purposes of Income Tax Acts upon a case stated by the Commissioners for the opinion of the High Court, pursuant to Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1918.

The sole question arising for decision in the appeal was whether the Appellants are entitled to the relief to charities under Section 37 sub-section 1 (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, by being granted exemption from tax under Schedule C in respect of any interest, annuities, dividends or shares of annuities, and from tax under Schedule D, in respect of any yearly interest or other annual payment forming part of the income of any body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only, or which according to the rules and regulations established by Act of Parliament, Charter, decree, deed of trust or will, are applicable to charitable purposes only. The income intended to be brought into charge to income tax by the assessments appealed against consisted of interest for four years ending 5th. April, 1925, on £32,000 Consolidated Stock owned by the Appellants, and representing donations to the Association which were invested in accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum of Association.

The Association applied to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1925, to allow exemption from income tax under Section 37 of the Act of 1918, on the income of investments, but the Commissioners refused the application. The Association next applied to the Special Commissioners under Section 19 (3) of the Finance Act, 1925, for the determination of the claim of those Commissioners, it being contended that it being a part of the Jewish religion to acquire and hold land in Palestine for the Jewish people, assisting in such work was a religious act, and the furtherance of that object was correctly described as the advancement of religion. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, on the other hard, maintained that the promotion of the objects of the

Association was not a religious duty of members of the Jewish faith, nor for the advancement of religion, also that the object of the Association was not a purpose beneficial to the community in the charitable sense. Further, that the Association was not a body to which Section 37 (1) (b) of the Act of 1918 applied, as it was controlled and resident abroad, and its activities were carried on abroad.

The Special Commissioners determined the Claim adversely to the Association, and decided:-“We held that the Association was not a charity, and that its funds were not applicable to, nor applied to charitable purposes only. We therefore refused the claim”. The case stated by the Special Commissioners came for hearing in the King’s Bench Division before Mr. Justice Rowlatt, and he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Special Commissioners. He expressed the opinion that the object of the Association could be shortly described by the commonly understood word “Zionist”, and added that the design of it was to populate Palestine and the surrounding country with Jews, the dominant motive being towards the land, and not towards the people.

The Association then appealed to the Court of Appeal, where again their appeal was dismissed, and the decisions of Mr. Justice Rowlatt and the Special Commissioners were affirmed, so appeal has now been taken to the House of Lords.

Mr. Norman Bentwich, in opening the case for the Association, asked for a little indulgence as, having been away for many years he was not so familiar as he might otherwise be with the procedure in that House. Lord Tomlin, who presided, replied: I have no doubt you will get along very well.

POPULATION OF PALESTINE WITH JEWS AN INCIDENT OF ACTIVITIES WHILE PRIMARY AND ULTIMATE OBJECT IS RESETTLEMENT OF JEWS IN PROMISED LAND THAT THEIR TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS HOME MIGHT BE RE-ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BIBLICAL PROPHECY AND JUDAISM MIGHT EXERCISE SPIRITUAL INFLUENCE ON JEWISH PEOPLE AND HUMANITY

Mr. Bentwich, with whom appeared Mr. H. Infield and Mr. Leonard Stein (Sir Thomas Inskip, the Attorney-General, is leading for the Crown), in proceeding to explain the circumstances of the case, said that Judaism was a combination of religion and nationality. The promise of God to Abraham was a fundamental belief of Judaism, and the religion was bound up with the Jews living again in Palestine, when only could they become a political force and power. In this way the purpose of the Association for the resettlement of Jews in the Promised Land, being a fundamental part of Judaism, and assisting in that purpose was a religious act and for the advancement of religion. While the population of Palestine with Jews was an incident of the activities of the Association, the primary and ultimate object was the resettlement of the Jews in the Promised Land so that their traditional religious home might be reestablished in accordance with Biblical prophecy, and that Judaism might exercise a spiritual influence on the Jewish people and on humanity.

Mr. Bentwich went on to deal with the Memorandum of Association, the submissions of the Company in respect of which were that in the construction of it the circumstances surrounding the formation of the Association, including the knowledge and religious beliefs of its promoters and subscribers, were material considerations, and the religious purpose of the

Association, though not expressly mentioned, should be implied in the Memorandum which dealt only with the practical objects subserving that purpose. That upon a true construction of the Memorandum, the other activities in which the Association might engage were ancillary to the primary object and not alternative or separate objects. They indicated the ways in which that object might be carried out, and as expressly provided, the powers conferred might only be exercised in such a way as to conduce to the attainment of that object. That the primary purpose of the Association did not lose its charitable character by the inclusion in its objects of activities admissible for the accomplishment of such purpose, which were not in themselves, separately considered, charitable. That all the funds of the Association had been collected on the terms that they should be applied to religious and other charitable uses, and there was consequently a trust to that effect upon the funds of the Association.

ONLY ANALOGY THAT OCCURS TO ME IS FINANCING OF CRUSADES LORD MACMILLAN REMARKS: LORD TOMLIN SAYS THEY ARE PREPARED TO ACCEPT AS PART OF ARGUMENT THAT REPATRIATION OF JEWS TO PALESTINE IS PART OF THEIR RELIGION: BUT COULD ONE WHO IS NOT A JEW HOLD SHARE IN COMPANY?: MR. BENTWICH QUOTES PRAYER BOOK TALMUD AND RABBINICAL AUTHORITIES CONCERNING SETTLEMENT OF JEWS IN PROMISED LAND

Lord MacMillan said the argument put forward for the Association was that the acquisition of land by them in Palestine was looked upon by Jews as a religious matter, while clearly the transactions of an ordinary land development company would not be.

Lord Tomlin questioned how the sentiments of the people of this limited liability company could be different from those of others. However, their lordships were prepared to accept as part of Counsel’s argument that the repatriation of the Jews to Palestine was part of their religion. Would it be possible, he asked, for anyone who was not a Jew to hold a share in the Company? If one was held originally by a Jew, it might pass to someone who was not a Jew. It did not seem to him that it was necessary for members of the Association to be Jews at all.

Mr. Bentwich said that he was told that the whole of the founders must be Jews. He then proceeded to refer to a number of Biblical texts illustrating the tenet of Judaism concerning the settlement of Jews in the Promised Land, extracts from the authorised daily prayer book of the United Hebrew Congregations, Rabbinical passages from the Talmud, and Rabbinical authorities of the Middle Ages, etc.

Lord MacMilland said the only analogy that occurred to him was the financing of the Crusades.

Lord Tomlin: Now we are getting back to a region when there were no joint stock companies and no income tax. The real point is whether when you have a document in plain English with a common meaning you are to read into the minds of the people drawing it up something which does not bear a common meaning?

The further hearing was adjourned till Tuesday.