Hochstrasser (Inspector of Taxes) v Mayes

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1958
Year1958
CourtCourt of Appeal

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
12 cases
  • Simpson v John Reynolds & Company (Insurances) Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
  • PA Holdings Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 30 November 2011
    ...and was something in the nature of a reward for past, present or future services (the test applied by Upjohn J in Hochstrasser v Mayes [1959] Ch 22 at 33 [71]). The First Tier Tribunal also concluded that if it viewed the transactions realistically and applied the relevant statutory provis......
  • Pritchard (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Arundale
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 30 July 1971
    ...employer as being a taxable profit of his employment, with two exceptions, one of which was a gift to him in his personal capacity: see [1959] Ch. 22, at page 54(2) . In the House of Lords Lord Simonds, [1960] A.C., at page 389(3), deprecated this approach, saying that it was not for the su......
  • Sloane Robinson Investment Services Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, TC 02132
    • United Kingdom
    • First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)
    • 16 July 2012
    ...was in the nature of a reward for past, present or future services: PA 28 Holdings at [23] per Moses LJ, referring to Hochstrasser v Mayes [1959] Ch 22, at 33. 63 The Tribunal should not be seduced by the form in which the payments reached the employees but should focus on the character of ......
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
  • Tax Update - Monday 5 December 2011
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 9 December 2011
    ...to the services rendered by the employees, as rewards for services past, present or future (Upjohn J's test in Hochstrasser v Mayes [1959] Ch 22 at 33) and concluded the payments were emoluments or earnings falling within the definition in section 19 ICTA. It relied on a number of features ......