The first question asked is: Was Mrs. Brooks owner of the land
within the meaning of the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1912?
By the definition in sec. 3 the word "owner" includes, among
others, every person who jointly or severally, whether at law or in
equity "is entitled to receive, or in receipt of, or if the land were
let to a tenant would be entitled to receive, the rents and profits
thereof, whether as beneficial owner, trustee, mortgagee in possession,
or otherwise." How is it possible to say that Mrs. Brooks was
entitled to receive the rents and profits of this land? Suppose the
income from the land were double the amount of the rent-charge.
No one could seriously put forward the theory that in that case
she was entitled to receive the rents and profits. The fact that
the rents are actually less than the annuity makes no difference.
The amount of the rent actually received is wholly irrelevant to
the amount of the annuity and vice versd. If, for instance, there
were a dozén annuitants each having a small rent-charge, could it
be said that they were the joint owners of the land or joint owners
with the devisees under the will, and so entitled to the receipt of the
rents and profits? In my judgment the words " entitled to receive
the rents and profits" mean entitled directly to receive all the
rents and profits (not some of the rents and profits), that is, the
reditus from the land ; if the land is let, to receive payment of the
tent ; if it is occupied without lease, to receive compensation for
such use and occupation. They do not, as contended by the Com-
missioner, include the case of a person who is merely entitled to
receive a sum out of rents and profits received by another person.