Revenue Commissioners v Doorley
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judgment Date | 28 July 1933 |
Date | 28 July 1933 |
Docket Number | (1931. No. 151.) |
Court | Supreme Court (Irish Free State) |
Succession duty - Bequest for charitable purposes - Exemption from duty - Will - Construction - Scope of charitable bequest - "Preference" to be given to a particular district - Stamp Duties (Ir.) Act, 1842 (5 6 Vict., c. 82), s. 38 - Succession Duty Act, 1853 (16 17 Vict., c. 51) s. 18 - Finance Act, 1923 (No. 21 of 1923), s. 17 - Finance Act,1932 (No. 20 of 1932), s. 46 - Statutes imposing taxation - Construction.
The Stamp Duties (Ir.) Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict., c. 82), granted certain duties to the Crown upon legacies. Section 38 stated what was to be deemed a legacy under the Act, and added a proviso "that nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed to extend to charge with duty in Ireland any legacy given for the education or maintenance of poor children in Ireland, or to be applied in support of any charitable institution in Ireland, or for any purpose merely charitable." Held, by a majority of the Supreme Court (FitzGibbon and Murnaghan, J.J.; Kennedy, C. J., dissenting), overruling Hanna, J., that the concluding words of this proviso "for any purpose merely charitable" were not to be construed as limited to any purpose merely charitable in Ireland. Attorney-Generalv. Hope,UNK I. R. 2 C. L 368, overruled. By his will a testator left the residue of his estate to trustees upon trust to pay the income therefrom to his wife for life and after her death to pay the said residue to "the Catholic Bishop of Elphin and the Parish Priest of Strokestown for the time being for such religious and charitable purposes as they in their absolute discretion think fit. They to give preference to Strokestown and adjoining parishes." Testator was survived by his wife, and on her death...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Liam Slattery v Bernadette Flynn
...(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) ACT s1(3)(a)(i) INSPECTOR OF TAXES V KIERNAN 1981 IR 117 MCGRATH V MCDERMOTT 1988 IR 258 REVENUE CMMRS V DOORLEY 1933 IR 750 SAATCHI & SAATCHI ADVERTISING V MCGARRY 1998 2 IR 562 EAST DONEGAL COOPERATIVE LIVESTOCK MART LTD V AG 1970 IR 317 FOREST HILLS TROSSACHS CLU......
-
Keogh v Criminal Assets Bureau
...FAKIH V MIN FOR JUSTICE 1993 2 IR 406 GUTRANI V MIN FOR JUSTICE 1993 2 IR 427 AG V CARLTON BANK 1899 2 QB 158 REVENUE CMSR V DOORLEY 1933 IR 750 TAXES CONSOLIDATION ACT 1997 S933(6)(A) TAXES CONSOLIDATION ACT 1997 S933(1)(D)(II) WILEY V REVENUE CMSR 1994 2 IR 160 WEBB V IRELAND 1988 I......
-
Revenue Commissioners v O'Flynn Construction Company Ltd and Others
...LTD v O CULACHAIN (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) 1986 IR 196 INSPECTOR OF TAXES v KIERNAN 1981 IR 117 1982 ILRM 13 REVENUE COMMISSIONERS v DOORLEY 1933 IR 750 TAXES CONSOLIDATION ACT 1997 S811(3)(b) CANADA TRUSTCO MORTGAGE CO v CANADA 2005 259 DLR (4TH) 193 FINANCE ACT 1989 S86(3)(a) Abstract: Rev......
-
Twomey (Inspector of Taxes) v Hennessy
...TAXES) 40 TC 585 O'CONNELL (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) v FYFFES BANANA PROCESSING LTD 2000 TC 235 2000/14/5389 REVENUE CMRS v DOORLEY & MCDERMOTT 1933 IR 750 INSPECTOR OF TAXES v KIERNAN 1981 IR 117 1982 ILRM 13 1981/10/1728 MARA (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) v HUMMINGBIRD LTD 1982 ILRM 421 O CULACHAIN (......
-
Real Estate Update: The New Rates Trap
...(http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2013/9813/b9813d-sAtoA.pdf) accessed 28 May 2015. [10] Revenue Commissioners v Doorley [1933] IR 750, 765 per Kennedy The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sough......