Property Tax in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Haugesund Kommune v Depfa ACS Bank
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 12 Fev 2010

    This conclusion renders it unnecessary to give separate consideration to the question of the actual authority of the individual officers of the municipalities to enter into the loan agreements. However in case it is relevant I should state that I can in any event see no basis upon which the officers concerned had authority to enter into the amendments to the loan agreements. It bore no relation to anything authorised by the resolution.

  • Fry v Salisbury House Estate Ltd ; Jones v City of London Real Property Company Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 04 Abr 1930

    Now, the cardinal consideration in my judgment is that the income tax is only one tax, a tax on the income of the person whom it is sought to assess, and that the different Schedules are the modes in which the Statute directs this to be levied. That tax is to be levied on the income of the individual whom it is proposed to assess, but then you have to consider the nature, the constituent parts, of his income to see which Schedule you are to apply.

  • Whitney v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
    • House of Lords
    • 06 Nov 1925

    Now, there are three stages in the imposition of a tax: there is the declaration of liability, that is the part of the statute which determines what persons in respect of what property are liable. But assessment particularises the exact sum which a person liable has to pay. Lastly, come the methods of recovery, if the person taxed does not voluntarily pay.

  • Stack v Dowden
    • House of Lords
    • 25 Abr 2007

    The law has indeed moved on in response to changing social and economic conditions. The search is to ascertain the parties' shared intentions, actual, inferred or imputed, with respect to the property in the light of their whole course of conduct in relation to it.

  • Sieff v Fox
    • Chancery Division
    • 23 Jun 2005

    But I have no doubt that fiscal consequences may be relevant considerations which the trustees ought to take into account, and that a material difference between the intended and actual fiscal consequences of the act may be sufficient to bring the principle into play.

  • Craven (HM Inspector of Taxes) v White; Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Bowater Property Developments Ltd; Baylis (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Gregory
    • House of Lords
    • 21 Jul 1988

    The most important feature of the principle is that the series of transactions is to be regarded as a whole.

  • Pitt and another v Holt and another; Futter and another v Futter and Others
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 09 Mar 2011

    It will be voidable if, and only if, it can be shown to have been done in breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the trustees. If it is voidable, then it may be capable of being set aside at the suit of a beneficiary, but this would be subject to equitable defences and to the court's discretion. The trustees' duty to take relevant matters into account is a fiduciary duty, so an act done as a result of a breach of that duty is voidable.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT