Mangin v IRC [1971] AC 739
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:16:49 UTC
Lord Donovan
The words are to be given their ordinary meaning. They are not to be given some other meaning simply because their object is to frustrate legitimate tax avoidance devices.
Moral precepts are not applicable to the interpretation of revenue statutes.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Styles v Treasurer of Middle Temple
I am rather disposed to repudiate the notion of there being any artificial distinction between the rules to be applied to a taxing Act and the rules to be applied to any other Act. I do not think suc...
Partington v AG
If the subject comes within the letter or the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to be. On the other hand, if the Crown, seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject...
IRC v Duke of Westminster
So long as the form of the transaction is in fact carried out, it cannot be disregarded by the Commissioners or the court in favour of some more normal and likely form which would attract greater tax...
IRC v McGuckian
The new development was not based on a linguistic analysis of the meaning of particular words in a statute. It was founded on a broad purposive interpretation, giving effect to the intention of Parli...
MacNiven v Westmoreland Investments Ltd
Judges lacked the constitutional authority to develop an overriding legal principle. Instead, if the new approach is to be justified, it needs to be shown in each case precisely why it is that statut...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.