Prince v Mapp

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date26 November 1969
Date26 November 1969
CourtChancery Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
6 cases
  • MacAonghusa v Ringmahon Company
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 26 November 1999
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 27 July 1983
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 2 May 1985
  • Ian Flockton Developments Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 6 March 1987
    ...other purposes. Such other purposes, if found to exist, will usually be the private purposes of the taxpayer. See for example Prince v. MappWLR[1970] 1 W.L.R. 260. To ascertain whether the money was expended to serve the purposes of the taxpayer's business it is necessary to discover the ta......
  • Get Started for Free

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