Goerz & Company v Bell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1904 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
13 cases
-
Union Corporation, Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
...known as "A. Goerz & Co., Ltd.", the question arose of its residence for Income Tax purposes. The Corporation was held in Goerz v.Bell, [1904] 2 K.B. 136, to be resident in the United Kingdom, Channell, J., remarking, at page 146, that it is possible-though I do not decide the question one ......
-
Roli Nesiama v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...residence for company registration purposes does not necessarily amount to residence for the purposes of income tax (see, e.g., Goerz & Co v Bell [1904] 2 KB 136). Reference to the use of the word in other legal contexts is therefore of no assistance – nor did either Ms Weston nor Mr Byass......
-
Union Corporation Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue; Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Company Ltd v IRC
...known as "A. Goerz & Co., Ltd.", the question arose of its residence for Income Tax purposes. The Corporation was held in Goerz v.Bell, [1904] 2 K.B. 136, to be resident in the United Kingdom, Channell, J., remarking, at page 146, that it is possible-though I do not decide the question one ......
-
Todd v Egyptian Delta Land and Investment Company
...shaken (see per Charles J., in the London Bank of Mexico v. A pthorpe; 1891, 1 Q.B. at page 388), and in 1904, in ( Goerz & Co. v. Bell 1904 2 K.B., 136), "residence" again came up for discussion before Channell, J. Though registered abroad, the Goerz Company had its head office in London,......
Request a trial to view additional results