Prince v Mapp
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1969 |
| Date | 26 November 1969 |
| Court | Chancery 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
9 cases
-
MacAonghusa v Ringmahon Company
...1970 S130(a) (UK) STRONG & CO OF ROMSEY LTD V WOODIFIELD (SURVEYOR OF TAXES) 1906 AC 448, 5 TC 215 PRINCE V MAPP (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) 1970 1 WLR 260 MORGAN V TATE & LYLE LTD 1955 AC 21, 35 TC 367 MACKINLAY, INSPECTOR OF TAXES V ARTHUR YOUNG MCCLELLAND MOORES & CO 1989 STC 898 VODAFONE CE......
-
Mallalieu v Drummond
...purposes. Such other purposes, if found to exist, will usually be the private purposes of the taxpayer. See for example Prince v. Mapp [1970] 1 W.L.R. 260. 24 To ascertain whether the money was expended to serve the purposes of the taxpayer's business it is necessary to discover the taxpaye......
-
Watkis v Ashford Sparkes & Harward
...(b)(b). Mr. Carnwath, on the other hand, has referred me to a passage in the judgment of Pennycuick J. inPrince v. Mapp TAX(1969) 46 T.C. 169, where the taxpayer unsuccessfully claimed to deduct the cost of an operation to the little finger of his left hand as an expense of his profession a......
-
CFC 25 1989
...ER 258; Murgatroyd v. Evans‑Jackson [1967] 1 All ER 881 at pages 882 and 887; Edwards v. Warmsley [1968] 1 All ER 1089; Prince v. Mapp [1970] 1 All ER 519; Lucas v. Cattell [1972] ATC 97; Mallalieu v. Drummond [1983] 2 AC 861 at pages 868 and 870F; and MacKinlay v. Arthur Young & Co [1990] ......
Request a trial to view additional results