Yarmouth v France
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1887 |
| Date | 1887 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
-
- 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
101 cases
- Quarries Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
-
Ó Culacháin v Mcmullan Brothers Ltd
...purpose, they were not plant; and that the fact that something was a building or structure was not decisive. Yarmouth v. FranceELR (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 647 and Breathnach v. McC.IR [1984] I.R. 340 applied. St. John's School (Mount Ford and Knibbs) v. WardTAX (1974) 49 T.C. 523 and Cole Bros. v.......
-
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Barclay, Curle & Company Ltd
...phrase has been interpreted in the authorities. As we understood the decided cases the definition of plant given by Lindley, L.J. in Yarmouth v. France 19 Q.B.D. 647 at page 658, has been adopted for Income Tax purposes. This definition reads "in its ordinary sense, it includes whatever app......
-
The Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs v The Executors of Lord Howard of Henderskelfe (Deceased)
...or plant') has a long history. It is in particular concerned with 'plant', the classic explanation of which is to be found in Yarmouth v. France (1887) 19 QBD 647. The question there was whether a vicious horse owned by an employer was 'plant' within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Emplo......
Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
-
Weekly Tax Update - Monday 24 March 2014
...predicable life of less than 50 years. The case relied on the classic explanation of plant, which is to be found in Yarmouth v. France (1887) 19 QBD 647, i.e. 'whatever apparatus is used by a business man for carrying on his business, - not his stock-in-trade which he buys or makes for sale......
-
Painting Or Plant?
...of 'plant' is case-law based, there being no elaboration in TCGA 1992, and the 'classic explanation' is provided in Yarmouth v France (1887) 19 QBD 647. 'Plant' is there described as including 'whatever apparatus is used by a businessman for carrying on his business - not his stock-in-trade......
-
Painting Is A Wasting Asset For CGT Purposes
...the definition of 'plant and machinery'. There is no statutory definition in TCGA 1992 but the classic explanation in Yarmouth v France (1887) 19 QBD 647 is that 'plant and machinery' is goods and chattels which are 'apparatus used by a business-man for carrying on his business' and 'which ......