Cooper (Inspector of Taxes) v Stubbs

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1924
Year1924
CourtCourt of Appeal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
66 cases
  • Jones v Leeming
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 18 March 1930
    ...Company instead of cash, even though unrealised. 12 No authority could be quoted in support of the appeal; the nearest was the case of Cooper v. Stubbs, (1925) 2 K.B., and its distance away, were such computation possible, could be measured in miles. Although the Commissioners there found t......
  • Clarke v British Telecom Pension Scheme Trustees
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 14 October 1998
    ... ... Lightman J ... Clarke (HM Inspector of Taxes) ... British Telecom Pension Scheme Trustees & Ors ... The ... The following cases were referred to in the judgment: ... Cooper (HMIT) v C & J Clark Ltd TAXTAX [1982] BTC 130; 54 TC 670 ... Davies ... 151 and 154 and distinguished Cooper (HMIT) v Stubbs' ExecsTAX (1925) 10 TC 29; in the latter case the taxpayers undertook ... ...
  • Jones v Leeming
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • Invalid date
    ... ... LEEMING v. JONES (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) ... 1928 June 18 ... 1929 Jan. 15 ... 1929 June 19, ... Pearn v. Miller ( 1927 ) 11 Tax Cas. 610 approved ... Cooper v. Stubbs [ 1925 ] 2 K. B. 753 distinguished ... CASE stated by ... ...
  • Townsend (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Grundy
    • United Kingdom
    • King's Bench Division
    • 14 July 1933
    ... ... Held, that the profits arising from the transactions were annual profits or gains assessable to Income Tax under Case VI of Schedule D ... Cooper v. Stubbs, 10 T.C. 29, followed ... CASE Stated under the Income Tax Act, 1918, Section 149, by the Commissioners for the General Purposes of the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Disciplined for `bringing a sport into disrepute': a framework for judicial review.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 25 No. 3, December 2001
    • 1 December 2001
    ...for an ulterior motive: at 628. (56) See, eg, Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC 14, 36 (Lord Radcliffe); Cooper v Stubbs [1925] 2 KB 753, 772 (Atkin LJ); British Launderers' Research Association v Borough of Hendon Rating Authority [1949] 1 KB 462, 471-2 (Denning LJ); Ashbri......

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