Sothern-Smith v Clancy (Inspector of Taxes)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 1940 |
| Date | 13 December 1940 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- 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
Start Your 3-day 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
Start Your 3-day 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
Start Your 3-day 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
Start Your 3-day 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
Start Your 3-day 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
Start Your 7-day Trial
17 cases
-
McCabe v South City and County Investment Company Ltd
...1 KB 494, 1903 AC 299 PERRIN V DICKSON 14 TC 608 HANBURY, IN RE 1959 38 TC 588 ESSEX CO COUNCIL V ELLAM 1989 STC 317 SOTHERN-SMITH V CLANCY 24 TC 1 IRC V PLUMMER 1979 3 AER 775 1 Mr. Justice Francis D Murphydelivered the 30th day of July 1997[LYNCH CONC] 2The issue in this case was whether......
-
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Plummer
...the annuity agreement and was not returnable to Hovas either in whole or in part at any time. They treated the case as covered by Sothern-Smith v. Clancy (24 Tax Cases, 1) and accordingly held that the sums paid by the respondent under the annuity agreement were payments of an annuity or o......
-
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Plummer
...find it possible to do this. The classic analysis of this type of transaction is the judgment of Sir Wilfrid Greene M.R. in Sothern-Smith v. Clancy [1941] 1 K.B. 276. There, on the facts, there was a strong case for saying that the annuitant or the annuitant plus the named recipient was sim......
- Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Plummer
Get Started for Free