Hill v Gregory
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 1912 |
| Date | 21 February 1912 |
| 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
28 cases
-
Whitworth Park Coal Company Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
...all payments that are made annually are annual payments under Case III ( Earl Howe v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 7 T.C. 289; Hill v. Gregory, 6 T.C. 39). The reason for limitation lies in the fact that for the Courts Case III annual payments have been inseparably associated with ......
-
Rank Xerox Ltd v Lane
...question must be ejusdem generis with the specific instances given in the shape of interest of money and annuities: see Hill v. Gregory(2) 6 T.C. 39,per Hamilton J., at page 47; Earl Howe v.Commissioners of Inland Revenue(3) 7 T.C. 289,per Scrutton L.J., at page 303…(ii) The payment in ques......
-
Rank Xerox Ltd v Lane
...the payment in question must be ejusdem generis with the specific instances given in the shape of interest of money and annuities:see Hill v. Gregory, 6 Tax Cases, 39, per Mr. Justice Hamilton at page 47; Earl Howe 7. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 7 Tax Cases, 289, per Lord Justice Scru......
-
Rank Xerox Ltd v Lane (HM Inspector of Taxes)
...question must be ejusdem generis with the specific instances given in the shape of interest of money and annuities: see Hill v. Gregory(2) 6 T.C. 39,per Hamilton J., at page 47; Earl Howe v.Commissioners of Inland Revenue(3) 7 T.C. 289,per Scrutton L.J., at page 303…(ii) The payment in ques......
Request a trial to view additional results