Hochstrasser (Inspector of Taxes) v Mayes

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1958
Year1958
CourtCourt of Appeal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
27 cases
  • Hochstrasser (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Mayes
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 30 November 1959
    ...Contents have it. [Solicitors:-Solicitor of Inland Revenue; Mr. J. W. Ridsdale, I.C.I., Ltd., Legal Department.] 1 Reported (Ch.D.) [1959] Ch. 22; [1958] 2 W.L.R. 982; 102 S.J. 419; [1958] 1 All E.R. 369; 225 L.T.Jo. 75; (C.A.) [1959] Ch. 22; [1958] 3 W.L.R. 215; 102 S.J. 546; [1958] 3 All ......
  • Mairs (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Haughey
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland)
    • 8 May 1992
    ...[1987] 1 WLR 357; [1987] BTC 83 (CA) Henry (HMIT) v Foster; Hunter (HMIT) v Dewhurst TAX(1930) 16 TC 605 Hochstrasser (HMIT) v Mayes ELRELR[1959] Ch 22 (ChD, CA); [1960] AC 376 (HL) Laidler v Perry (HMIT) ELR[1966] AC 16 Shilton v Wilmshurst (HMIT) ELRTAX[1991] 1 AC 684; [1991] BTC 66 Stone......
  • 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......
  • Bray v Best
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 23 February 1989
    ...Hochstrasser v. Mayes [1960] A.C. 376 in which Viscount Simonds, at p. 388 cited with approval the judgment of Upjohn J. in the same case [1959] Ch. 22, 33 where he said:� "� payment must be made in reference to the services the employee renders by virtue of his office, and it must be s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
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 ......

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