Sulley v Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1860 |
| Date | 11 May 1860 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 1364
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 29 L. J. Ex. 464, 6 Jur. (N. S) 1018; 8 W. R 472, 2 L. T. 439. Explained and distinguished, Attorney-General v. Alerander, 1874, L. R. 10 Ex 32. Discussed, Cesena Sulphur Company v. Nicholson, 1876, 1 Ex D. 446; Pommery v. Apthor pe, 1886, 56 L. J. Q B. 159; 38 W. R. 307; 56 L. T 24; Colquhoun v Brooks, 1887, 19 Q. B D. 411; Grainger v Gough, (1896) A. C. 328; Commissioners of Taration v. Kirk, (1900) A C 593, Attorney-General v. McCormack, (1903) 2 Ir. R. 517. Distinguished Ericksen v. Last, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 17. Approved, Werte v, Colquhoun, 1888, 20 Q. B. D. 759. Referred to, Lovell and Christmas, Limited v. Commissioner of Taxes, (1908) A. C. 52; Egyptian Hotels, Limited v Mitchell, (1914) 3 K. B 129; Rex v Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, (1914) 3 K. B. 437.
[711] in the exchequer chamber (Error from the Court of Exchequer.) suliey v. thb attorney general. May 11, 1860-The defendant, a partner in the firm of L L. & Co. resided at Nottingham, the other partners residing at New York, in the United States of America, where the principal business of the firm was carried on. At Nottingham the defendant transacted the business of the firm in England, which consisted of purchasing and shipping goods for exportation, but no money was received in England except from New York The profits arose on the resale of the goods at an increased price in America -Held, by the Court of Exchequer Chamber (reversing the decision of the Court of Exchequer), that the defendant was not chargeable or liable to make any return under the Income Tax Acts in respect of any profits of the firm made by the exportation of goods from the United Kingdom. [S. G 29 L. J. Ex. 464 , 6 Jur. (N. S ) 1018 ; 8 W. R 472, 2 L. T. 439. Explained and distinguished, Attorney-General v. Alemnder, 1874, L. R 10 Ex 32. Discussed, Cesena Sulphur Company v. Nicholson, 1876, 1 Ex D. 446; Pom-mety v. Apthoipe, 1886, 56 L. J. Q B. 159 ; 38 W. R. 307; 56 L. T 24; Colquhoun v fiiools, 1887, 19 Q. B D. 411 ; Giainger v Gough, [1896] A. C. 328 ; Commissioners of Taxation v. Kirk, [I90CF] A C 593 , Attorney-General v. McCwmack, [1903] 2 Ir. R. 517. Dis tinguished Erich-sen v. Last, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 17. Approved, Wertev. Colquhoun, 1888, 20 Q. B. D. 759. Referred to, Lovell and Christmas, Limited v. Commswnei of Taxes, [1908] A. C. 52; Egyptian Hotels, Limited v Mitchell, [1914] 3 K. B 129 ; Er, v Kensington Income Tax Commissioner, [1914] 3 K. B. 437.] This was at writ of error on the judgment of the Court of Exchequer. For the pleadings, special verdict and the judgment of the Court below, see 4 H. & N. 769. Mellish (with whom was R, E. Turner), argued for the plaintiff in error (defendant below). The question for the consideration of the Court is how far a partnership firm, having tkeir principal place of business abroad, but one partner or agent being resident here, is assessable to the income tax. It ia admitted that the partner resident here must make a return and pay upon the whole oi his own profits Where a trade ia carried on partly abroad and partly in this country, partners resident abroad are not taxable except in respect of the profits made here. It can hardly be contended that partners, citizens of a foreign state and resident abroad, are to be assessed in respect of their profits made abroad. Where the business consists of buying here...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Hood & Company, Ltd, v Magee
...C. 455. (3) [1916] 2 A. C. 307. (4) [1914] 3 K. B. 118. (1) [1906] A. C., at p. 459. (2) 108 L. T. 353; 104 L. T. 217; 106 L. T. 171. (3) 5 H. & N. 711. (1) [1897] A. C. 22. (2) [1908] K. B. 89. (3) [1906] A. C. 455. (1) [1896] A. C. 325. (2) 106 L. T. 171; C. A. 108 L. T. 353 H. L. (3) [18......
-
Davies v British Geon Ltd
...held that the place of business was in London, although the pier was built in Vales and the tolls were taken there. She decision in Sulley v. Attorney general, was to the same effect. The case of and Great Southern and Western Railway Co. v. was cited for the appellants, is, I am satisfied,......
-
Crookston Brothers v Inland Revenue
...T. C. 89. 1 (1886) 2 T. C. 182. 2 20 Q. B. D. 753. 1 [1896] A. C. 325. 2 [1895] 1 Q. B. 71. 3 [1898] 1 Q. B. 326. 4 (1898) 4 T. C. 25. 5 5 H. & N. 711. 1 [1896] A. C., at p. 2 [1896] A. C. 325. 3 8 Q. B. D. 414. 1 [1896] A. C. 325. 1 [1896] A. C. 325. 2 8 Q. B. D. 414. 3 2 T. C. 89. 4 2 T. ......
- Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company v Bennett