Finsbury Securities Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1965
Date1965
CourtChancery Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
6 cases
  • Greenberg v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 20 July 1971
    ... ... a ) in any such circumstances as are mentioned in the next following subsection, and ( b ) in consequence of a transaction in securities or of the combined effect of two or more such transactions, a person is in a position to obtain, or has obtained, a tax advantage ... The finance company dealing in shares was Finsbury Securities Ltd. (which I shall call "Finsbury"). Towards the end of 1958 the Greenbergs arranged with Finsbury that the company should create new ... ...
  • Thomson v Gurneville Securities Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 21 October 1971
    ... ... Commissioners allowed the relief (under section 341) for the year 1956-57, but refused ... 341 entitled to obtain a large sum from the Revenue on the basis that it suffered a loss for income tax purposes, although it ... : this exclusion being correct in the light of the decision in Finsbury Securities v. I.R.C. [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1402 ... The question is whether the ... ...
  • New Angel Court Ltd v Adam (Inspector of Taxes)
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 25 July 2003
    ... ... DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX Royal Courts of Justice Strand ... Mr Philip Jones (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue) for the Respondent ... an opportunity given by Parliament: Reed v Nova Securities Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 193 at 202 ... The issue was simply whether ... v J P Harrison (Watford) Limited [1963] AC 1; Finsbury Securities Ltd v. Bishop [1966] 1 WLR 1402; Lupton ... ...
  • Finsbury Securities Ltd v Bishop (HM Inspector of Taxes)
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 26 July 1966
    ...In the present case the dealer carried out 15 forward-strippingtransactions. They are described in the report in the Court below, [1965] 1 W.L.R. 358, and I need not repeat them again. The whole question in point of law is whether the loss sustained on these transactions by the dealer is a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional 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