Hartland v Diggines (Inspector of Taxes)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1926 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1926] UKHL J0122-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 22 January 1926 |
-
- 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
41 cases
-
Wilkins v Rogerson
...rates and telephone charges, and also the sums paid for the gardener's wages and the like as regards the gardens. 11 In the case of Hartland v. Diggines, reported in 1926 Appeal Cases at page 289, an employing company had agreed to pay the income tax on its employee's salary; and there the ......
-
Glynn v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Hong Kong)
...of the Board: A-G for Ontario v Perry ELR[1934] AC 477 Armstrong & Anor v Estate Duty Commr ELR[1937] AC 885 Hartland v Diggines ELR[1926] AC 289 Heaton (HMIT) v Bell ELR[1970] AC 728 North British Railway Co v Scott ELR[1923] AC 37 Tennant v Smith ELR[1892] AC 150 Income tax - Hong Kong sa......
-
Heaton (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Bell
...fiscal results. Contrast Wilkins v. Rogerson 39 T.C. 344; [1961] Ch. 133 with Nicoll v. Austin (1935) 19 T.C. 531 and Hartland v. Diggines 10 T.C. 247; [1926] A.C. 289. As to the effect of the arrangement between the company and the Respondent, see Smyth v. Stretton (1904) 5 T.C. 36, where ......
-
Richardson v Worrall
...not by Services directly. In support of his main contention Mr. Wheaten refers us to the well-known cases of Hartland v. Diggines TAX(1926) 10 T.C. 247;Nicoll v. Austin TAX(1935) 19 T.C. 531; Wilkins v. RogersonTAX(1960) 39 T.C. 344 and particularly to the following extract from the speech ......
Request a trial to view additional results