Earlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes): CA 1 May 1995

A close company has an additional obligation to notify the Revenue that a loan was chargeable to tax, and in default, it was liable for interest.

Citations:

Ind Summary 01-May-1995, Times 17-Mar-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromEarlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-May-1993
In computing company’s tax liability excessive pay not deductible. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toEarlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-May-1993
In computing company’s tax liability excessive pay not deductible. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Corporation Tax

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80212

Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue and Another: ChD 29 Nov 2013

Application by the defendants (‘HMRC’) to make certain re-amendments to their defence to which the claimants have not consented.

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3757 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.518500

Tapemaze Ltd v Melluish (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 24 Feb 2000

The company hired out cars, receiving advance payments. Such payments in respect of future accounting periods were brought forward as accruals. On the company’s sale the company was relieved of its obligations, but kept the accruals, and were charged to corporation tax on them as profits. For tax purposes the character of a payment was not necessarily judged once and for all when received. The accruals were properly treated as trade income for the period after the sale.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Feb-2000, Times 15-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 18(1)(a)(ii)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.89708

The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: ChD 24 Oct 2013

Section 790 of the 1988 Act should be construed to accord with European law so far as necessary to allow for the grant of tax credits for foreign dividends.

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3249 (Ch), [2013] WLR(D) 411, [2013] BTC 751, [2014] 2 CMLR 10, [2014] STC 1236, [2013] STI 3391

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 790

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.516970

Fidex Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Apr 2013

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – loan relationships – debit under paragraph 19A, Schedule 9, Finance Act 1996 in respect of the difference in the accounting value of loan relationships on a change of accounting practice – appellant company changing accounting practice from UK GAAP to IFRS at the 2004 year-end – appellant claiming the debit in the 2005 accounting period – whether there was as a matter of fact the relevant difference in the accounting value – expert evidence as to UK GAAP and IFRS considered – found that there was the relevant difference in accounting value – whether in that case the debit was not to be brought into account, as being attributable to an unallowable purpose, under paragraph 13, Schedule 9, Finance Act 1996 – found that the appellant’s tax avoidance purpose was achieved at the 2004 year-end – there were no times during the 2005 accounting period during which the appellant had an unallowable purpose such that on a just and reasonable apportionment any part of the debit was to be attributed to it – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 212 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal FromFidex Limited v Revenue and Customs UTTC 13-Nov-2014
Procedure – appeal against closure notice – reliance on grounds for amendment not stated in closure notice – Tower McCashback considered Corporation tax – loan relationships – application of paragraph 13 Sch9 FA 1996 to debit arising under para19A . .
At FTTXFidex Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 21-Apr-2016
‘This appeal is concerned with a tax avoidance scheme called Project Zephyr. The object of this scheme was to create a loss of around 84 million Euros in the hands of the appellant (‘Fidex’) which would be available for group relief throughout the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472799

Vodafone Cellular Ltd v G Shaw (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes): CA 20 Mar 1997

The court considered the application of the ‘exclusively’ test for expenditure which was sought to be set off against tax. Examining the leading modern cases, Millett LJ said: ‘the following propositions may be derived. (1) The words for the purposes of the trade mean to serve the purposes of the trade. They do not mean for the purposes of the taxpayer but for the purposes of the trade, which is a different concept. A fortiori they do not mean for the benefit of the taxpayer. (2) To ascertain whether the payment was made for the purposes of the taxpayer’s trade it is necessary to discover his object in making the payment. Save in obvious cases which speak for themselves, this involves an inquiry into the taxpayer’s subjective intentions at the time of the payment. (3) The object of the taxpayer in making the payment must be distinguished from the effect of the payment. A payment may be made exclusively for the purposes of the trade even though it also secures a private benefit. This will be the case if the securing of the private benefit was not the object of the payment but merely a consequential and incidental effect of the payment. (4) Although the taxpayer’s subjective intentions are determinative, these are not limited to the conscious motives which were in his mind at the time of the payment. Some consequences are so inevitably and inextricably involved in the payment that unless merely incidental they must be taken to be a purpose for which the payment was made. To these propositions I would add one more. The question does not involve an inquiry of the taxpayer whether he consciously intended to obtain a trade or personal advantage by the payment. The primary inquiry is to ascertain what was the particular object of the taxpayer in making the payment. Once that is ascertained, its characterisation as a trade or private purpose is in my opinion a matter for the commissioners, not for the taxpayer.’

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

[1997] STC 734, [1997] EWCA Civ 1297

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMallalieu v Drummond HL 27-Jul-1983
The taxpayer was a barrister. To comply with Bar guidance on court dress, she wore, in court and in and to and from chambers black dresses, suits and shoes and white blouses. The clothing were perfectly ordinary articles suitable for everyday wear. . .
Appeal fromVodafone Cellular Ltd v Shaw (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 8-Mar-1995
A payment buying out technology royalties was not to be allowed against Corporation Tax. The cost of buying out a right to receive a revenue share was an income payment, not a capital payment. . .
CitedMacKinlay (Inspector of Taxes) v Arthur Young McClelland Moores and Co HL 23-Nov-1989
Expenditure does not qualify for deduction if the object of the expenditure was to serve another private purpose in addition to the business purpose for which it was purportedly incurred.
HL Income Tax – . .

Cited by:

CitedDavid Robson v Eric Mitchell (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 8-Jul-2004
The taxpayer sought capital gains tax relief of a loan to a business.
Held: To succeed in his claim the taxpayer had to establish that the indebtedness created was to be used entirely to serve the borrower’s business. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.141693

Heavy Woollen Branch Club and Institute Union Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2012

Penalty – Section 98A(2) and (3) Taxes Management Act 1970 – late Employer’s P35 End of Year Return – Appellant thought Return had been filed on-line – further delays despite reminders – no reasonable excuse

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 391 (TC), [2012] UKFTT 391 (TC)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462802

Glaxo Group Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 8 Jan 1996

A transfer pricing direction allowed the Inland Revenue to issue adjustments after 6 years.

Citations:

Ind Summary 08-Jan-1996, [1996] STC 191

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromGlaxo Group Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 21-Nov-1995
A tax adjustment can be made by the Inland Revenue on an open assessment following transfer pricing enquiry and direction, even after many years. The court considered that the jurisdiction of the special and the general commissioners to determine . .

Cited by:

CitedUK Tradecorp Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioners for Customs and Excise Admn 10-Nov-2004
The trader had traded in zero-rated goods, leading to a net reclaim of input tax. Having submitted a claim, it sought repayment, and interest on the sums withheld.
Held: No duty fell upon the commissioners until they had accepted the claim to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.80862

Melluish (Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No 3) Ltd and Related Appeals: CA 17 Aug 1994

Capital allowances were not available on plant which had been leased to the Local Authority and which had since had become part of land occupied by them. The plant was no longer owned by the tax payers. Leased fixtures given capital allowances by sch 17 of 1985 Act after 1984.

Citations:

Gazette 19-Oct-1994, Times 17-Aug-1994, Ind Summary 05-Sep-1994

Statutes:

Finance Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromMelluish (Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No3) Ltd and Related Appeals ChD 15-Feb-1994
No capital allowances were available for a lease of heating equipment in a tenanted property. Allowances might be available if the property were not tenanted. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromMelluish (Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No 3) Ltd and Related Appeals HL 16-Oct-1995
Chattels which became affixed to a lessee’s land became fixtures, and were not available for tax allowances calculations. Lord Browne-Wilkinson said: ‘The terms expressly or implicitly agreed between the fixer of the chattel and the owner of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.83608

Imperial Chemical Industries v Colmer (Inspector of Taxes): CA 9 Aug 1993

Group tax relief was available despite other subsidiary companies within the same group being offshore.

Citations:

Gazette 20-Oct-1993, Times 11-Aug-1993, Ind Summary 09-Aug-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromICI Plc v Colmer (Inspector of Taxes) HL 15-Mar-1996
A ‘Holding company’ under the Act meant a company resident in the UK; A reference was made of the issues to the European Court. . .
At Court of AppealImperial Chemical Industries v Colmer ECJ 16-Jul-1998
A member state was not allowed to impose a tax regime which discriminated against the subsidiaries of a company based in that state where they were based in other member states, but discrimination was allowed where the subsidiaries were based . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81606

Franked Investment Income Group Litigation, The Test Claimants In v Revenue and Customs: CA 24 Nov 2016

Judges:

Sir Geoffrey Charles Vos Ch, Underhill, David Richards LJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 1180, [2017] STC 696, [2016] BTC 44, [2017] 1 CMLR 37

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 94

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At ChDThe Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Another ChD 14-Oct-2015
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Damages

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.571930

Market South West (Holdings) Ltd v HMRC: UTTC 6 Apr 2011

PROFITS – capital or revenue expenditure – costs of planning inquiry – taxpayer claiming conditions in planning permission invalid or seeking relaxation of the conditions – part capital, part revenue – remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for an apportionment

Citations:

[2011] UKUT B15 (TCC), [2011] STC 1469

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440822

JT Dove Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Dec 2010

Corporation tax – deductibility of payment to employee benefit trust (EBT) – whether payment made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of appellant’s trade – ICTA 1988 s 74(1)(a) – whether payment revenue or capital expenditure – ICTA, s 74(1)(f) – whether payment a ‘potential emolument’ – FA 1989, s 43(11)

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 16 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428211

Glaxo Group Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners: ChD 21 Nov 1995

A tax adjustment can be made by the Inland Revenue on an open assessment following transfer pricing enquiry and direction, even after many years. The court considered that the jurisdiction of the special and the general commissioners to determine such issues was exclusive: ‘It is not easy to discern any clear dividing-line between High Court proceedings which are, and those which are not, objectionable as attempts to circumvent the exclusive jurisdiction principle. Possibly the correct view is that there is an absolute exclusion of the High Court’s jurisdiction only when the proceedings seek relief which is more or less co-extensive with adjudicating on an existing open assessment: but that the more closely the High Court proceedings approximate to that in their substantial effect, the more ready the High Court will be, as a matter of discretion, to decline jurisdiction.’

Judges:

Robert Walker J

Citations:

Times 21-Nov-1995, Ind Summary 11-Dec-1995, [1995] STC 1075

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 770

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromGlaxo Group Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 8-Jan-1996
A transfer pricing direction allowed the Inland Revenue to issue adjustments after 6 years. . .
AppliedClaimants under the Loss Relief Group Litigation Order v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 3-Mar-2004
Various claimants sought to have issues of law on group relief and other issues settled under a group litigation order.
Held: The High Court had no jurisdiction to hear such matters until they had first been raised in ordinary tax appeals . .
CitedUK Tradecorp Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioners for Customs and Excise Admn 10-Nov-2004
The trader had traded in zero-rated goods, leading to a net reclaim of input tax. Having submitted a claim, it sought repayment, and interest on the sums withheld.
Held: No duty fell upon the commissioners until they had accepted the claim to . .
ApprovedAutologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
AppliedCapper v Chaney and Another ChD 8-Jul-2010
Police had seized substantial sums of cash from the first defendant acting under the 2004 Act. The claimant said that andpound;250,00 was his and sought its return. The Commissioner argued that the current proceedings were an abuse of process.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.80861

Eagerpath Ltd v Edwards (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 21 May 1999

Once a dispute on an assessment has been settled between the taxpayer and the Inspector, the taxpayer cannot subsequently appeal against refusal of relief for a claim of an error. There was no point of law in such an error.

Citations:

Times 21-May-1999

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 54 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toEagerpath Ltd v Edwards (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 14-Dec-2000
Where the special commissioner had determined that the dispute had been concluded by agreement, the taxpayer was precluded from appealing that decision claiming an ‘error or mistke’ That issue was not one relating to the computation of profits in . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromEagerpath Ltd v Edwards (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 14-Dec-2000
Where the special commissioner had determined that the dispute had been concluded by agreement, the taxpayer was precluded from appealing that decision claiming an ‘error or mistke’ That issue was not one relating to the computation of profits in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.80205

Dawsongroup Plc v Revenue and Customs: ChD 11 May 2010

The Court was asked whether or not certain expenditure incurred by the Appellant (‘Dawsongroup’) was deductible in computing its profits for the purposes of corporation tax

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1061 (Ch), [2010] STC 1906, [2010] BTC 1528

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415086

Finanzamt Linz v Bundesfinanzgericht, Aussenstelle Linz: ECJ 6 Oct 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Articles 49 TFEU, 54 TFEU, 107 TFEU and 108(3) TFEU – Freedom of establishment – State aid – Taxation of groups of companies – Acquisition of a holding in a subsidiary – Depreciation of the goodwill – Limitation on holdings in resident companies

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2015:661, [2015] EUECJ C-66/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.553097

Huntley Solutions Ltd v The Commissioners for Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Nov 2009

Penalty – Failure to provide information and documents – reliance on accountant – Whether reasonable excuse – No – Appeal dismissed – Paragraph 29 schedule 18 Finance Act 1998

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 329 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.409108

Helena Housing Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Feb 2010

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – ASSESSMENT – DEDUCTION FOR EXPENDITURE – Was the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for its Schedule A business – No – Was the Appellant a Charity – No – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 71 (TC), [2010] SFTD 515

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPrudential Assurance Co Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 2002
The taxpayer company had entered into two contracts on the same day. The contracts involved a taxpayer buying a freehold property from developers coupled with a separate development agreement under which the developers would complete construction . .

Cited by:

At FTTTxHelena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 9-May-2012
The company had undertaken substantial building works and sought associated tax relief. The court was asked whether, following a change in the company’s memorandum and articles of association, the company, a registered social landlord, remained a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Charity

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408925

Bayfine UK v Revenue and Customs: ChD 23 Mar 2010

Judges:

Peter Smith J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 609 (Ch), [2010] BTC 467, 12 ITL Rep 935, [2010] STI 1284, [2010] STC 1379

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromBayfine UK v HM Revenue and Customs CA 23-Mar-2011
The revenue appealed against the confirmation of the grant of double taxation relief to the taxpayer company. The Court was asked whether the UK company was entitled under article 23(2)(a) to a credit, to set against UK tax on its profits, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.403482

Franked Investment Group Litigation Test Claimants v Inland Revenue and Another: CA 23 Feb 2010

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 103

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
Appeal fromTest Claimants In the FII Group Litigation v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 27-Nov-2008
The claimants were companies with parent companies in the UK and other subsidiaries not so resident, both in the EU and outside. They complained of the differences in treatment under corporation tax of the payment of dividends between the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromTest Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue SC 23-May-2012
The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, European

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401676

Girobank Plc v Clarke (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 21 Mar 1996

The part use of an industrial building as an office defeats a capital allowance claim.

Citations:

Gazette 01-May-1996, Times 21-Mar-1996

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toGirobank Plc v Clarke (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 19-Dec-1997
The use of a building for data processing does not qualify it as the subjection of goods or materials to any process and therefore no capital allowance was claimable. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromGirobank Plc v Clarke (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 19-Dec-1997
The use of a building for data processing does not qualify it as the subjection of goods or materials to any process and therefore no capital allowance was claimable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.80844

Girvan (Inspector of Taxes) v Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd: ChD 3 Apr 1998

Interest which was retained by a bank until closure of the account under a firm arrangement to that effect was not taxable as it accrued but only when it came to be due to be paid. Income did not normally arise until it was payable.

Citations:

Gazette 20-May-1998, Times 22-Apr-1998, [1998] 70 TC 682, [1998] STC 567

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 64 70(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Income Tax

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.80848

Hillsdown Holdings Plc and HF Meat and Foods Processing Pension Scheme Trustees Limited v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: ChD 13 May 1999

A payment made out of a pension scheme which had subsequently been found unlawful and ordered to be repaid, was not a taxable payment as such. The payment had been made in good faith and on advice.

Citations:

Times 13-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 219

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 601

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Financial Services

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.81384

Commission v Italy C-540/07: ECJ 16 Jul 2009

ECJ (Taxation) Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations) Free movement of capital Article 56 EC Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement Direct taxation Withholding tax on outgoing dividends Deduction to the registered office of the beneficiary of the dividend under a preventive double taxation

Citations:

C-540/07, [2009] EUECJ C-540/07 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

OpinionCommission v Italy C-540/07 ECJ 19-Nov-2009
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Free movement of capital Article 56 EC Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement Direct taxation Withholding at source on outgoing dividends Set-off at the place . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.374262

Dawsongroup Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Jun 2009

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – de-listing of quoted company – whether costs of delisting allowable expense in corporation tax computation – whether company an ‘investment company’ – ICTA s 130 – no – whether costs ‘expenses of management’ – ICTA s 75 – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 137 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373677

Marks and Spencer Plc v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Apr 2009

FTTTx EUROPEAN LAW – group relief for losses of non-resident subsidiaries – whether there are no possibilities for those losses to be taken into account at the date of the group relief claim – no at the date of the original claims which are not valid claims, and yes on 20 March 2007 when the second claims were made — appeals allowed in principle

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 64 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373618

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Unilever Plc and Others: QBD 12 Sep 1994

The Inland Revenue is to notify taxpayer of a change in acquiescence in practice to late payment.

Citations:

Ind Summary 12-Sep-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Unilever plc CA 1996
The Revenue had refused to exercise a discretion in favour of the taxpayer in the same form it had granted for over twenty years. The taxpayer complained that this was unfair.
Held: The new approach to late applications, brought in without any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Administrative

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.86940

Able (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: CA 22 Nov 2007

The taxpayer company had received compensation for having been excluded from its business premises for a period until a compulsory purchase process failed. It treated the receipt as capital. The revenue said it was income.
Held: The court considered how to treat mistakes of law by lower courts.
Buxton LJ said: ‘We were assured on all sides that the present issue is one of law. So be it: but it is an issue of law of a rather special sort, not least because . . . the distinction between capital and income has to be determined from a practical and business point of view. . . For my part, and whatever the technical jurisprudential position, I would think that the time has now come to leave these practical and business issues principally in the hands of the specialist tribunal that has been constituted to decide them. Parties should in future hesitate long before contending that a view taken by that specialist tribunal is apt for reconsideration by the High Court, and much less by this court.’
Lawrence Collins LJ said: ‘There is much to be said for the view, expressed in a different context, that where the answer to a question is a matter of degree, taking account of all the circumstances, then an appellate court should show some circumspection before interfering with the decision at first instance: Beynon v Customs and Excise Commissioners [2005] 1 WLR 86 at [27]. In particular, once as a matter of law a receipt or an expenditure is capable of being regarded as capital or income (as the case maybe), then the Commissioners’ decision should be capable of review only on Edwards v Bairstow 1956 AC14 principals.’

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Moses LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1207

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLondon and Thames Haven Oil Wharves Ltd v Attwooll CA 1966
When asking whether a payment of damages was a capital or income receipt, the court should ask whether the sum which the trader ought to have received have been credited as an income receipt of the trade? . .
Appeal fromAble (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs ChD 19-Oct-2006
Appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the General Commissioners as to whether a certain compensation payment received by the appellant under section 31(3) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 was income or capital. The General . .
CitedAble (UK) Holdings Ltd v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 30-Jun-2006
. .

Cited by:

CitedHM Revenue and Customs v Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd ChD 21-Jan-2008
The court was asked whether the weight-watchers program which included attendance at a course and a supply of supporting materials was one single standard-rated supply or separate supplies of zero-rated printed materials and standard-rated support . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261448

Test Claimants In The Thin Cap Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: ECJ 13 Mar 2007

Europa Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital Corporation tax Loan interest paid to a related company resident in another Member State or in a non-member country Interest treated as a distribution Cohesion of the tax system Tax avoidance).

Citations:

[2007] EUECJ C-524/04, [2006] EUECJ C-524/04

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251136

Revenue and Customs v Maco Door and Window Hardware (Uk) Ltd: ChD 19 Jul 2006

The Revenue sought to disallow for industrial buildings allowance sums expended on warehouse premises which were to be used to store window products imported for use in other manufacturing processes.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal succeeded. ‘The question under s.18(1) is whether the warehouse is in use for the purposes of a trade which consists in the storage of qualifying goods and materials.’ and ‘for an operation to be part of a trade within the meaning of s.18(2) it must itself be an activity in the nature of a trade. As s.18 itself demonstrates a trade for these purposes is not limited to the selling of goods and can include both manufacturing and processing operations. But like Lightman J, I am not persuaded that storage as a trade in s.18(1) and as part of a trade in s.18(2) involve the application of quite different tests. Section 18(2) operates only to expand the definition contained in s.18(1) not to alter it. ‘ Although the storage of the qualifying goods in this case is carried out in a separate building and on a quite different scale, it is nonetheless carried out to support the company’s wholesale trading operation and not as a trading or commercial activity in itself. On my view of s.18(2) that is not enough.

Judges:

Patten J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1832 (Ch), Times 11-Aug-2006, [2006] BTC 829, [2006] STI 1919, [2007] STC 721

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990, Capital Allowances Act 2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKay v Burrows HL 1931
The House considered whether premises (the greater part of which was used for the storage of rags awaiting processing, sorting or subsequent despatch) fell within the proviso to s.3(1) which excluded premises ‘primarily occupied and used [for the] . .
CitedDale (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Johnson Brothers 1951
(Year?) The taxpayer claimed an industrial buildings allowance against his tax liabilities for a warehouse used as storage as a trade in itself. Two thirds of the use was for storage of finished goods awaiting collection or delivery. The taxpayers . .
CitedSaxone Lilley and Skinner (Holdings) Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue HL 1967
The taxpayer company was the parent company of a group of subsidiaries, one of which traded as the manufacturer and retailer of shoes. The others either manufactured or sold shoes. The company built a warehouse which was let to a warehousing . .
CitedBestway (Holdings) Ltd v Luff (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 4-Mar-1998
The taxpayer company operated a wholesale cash and carry business from a number of self-service supermarkets. The stores sold groceries, household goods, tobacco, confectionery and various kinds of alcohol. Although the buildings were not open to . .
Wrongly DecidedCrusabridge Investments Ltd v Casings International Limited 1979
The landlord of light industrial premises sought damages from his tenant for breach of the user covenant in the lease. This permitted the premises to be used, inter alia, as an ‘industrial building or structure’ as defined by the Capital Allowances . .
CitedKilmarnock Equitable Co-operative Society Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners SCS 16-Feb-1966
Income Tax, Schedule D – Profits Tax – Capital allowances – Industrial building or structure – Building for screening and packing coal – Whether coal subjected to a process – Whether building used for purpose ancillary to a retail shop – Income Tax . .
CitedVibroplant Ltd v Holland (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 1980
The use of the buildings for servicing and repairing the plant which Vibroplant wished to hire out, was an essential part of Vibroplant’s business of plant hire operators and part of their trade. Although not required to decide the point, the court . .
CitedRolls Royce Motors Ltd v Bamford 1976
The court was asked whether the new state owned company which took over some of the assets and undertaking of Rolls Royce Ltd following its insolvency was entitled to carry forward and set against its profits the losses of the old company up to the . .
At SCITMaco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SCIT 25-Oct-2005
SCIT CAPITAL ALLOWANCES – industrial buildings allowances – building used to house goods manufactured by the Appellant’s Austrian parent company for sale to wholesalers in the UK to be used in manufacture – . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromMaco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 19-Jun-2007
Correct classification, for the purposes of capital allowances, of expenditure on a building provided for the business of the appellant. . .
At Divisional CourtMaco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked whether a warehouse used to store purchases made by the company from its parent company in Austria, was an ‘industrial building or structure’. It was agreed that the facility was used for the storage of materials for use in later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243331

Inland Revenue v J B Hodge and Co (Glasgow), Ltd (In Liquidation): HL 13 Jul 1961

Profits Tax – Trade or business transferred – Election under Section 36 (4), Finance Act, 1947 – Transferor company wound up after selling shares in successor – Distributions exceed paid-up share capital – Whether distribution charge incurred – Finance Act, 1947 (10 and 11 Geo. VI, c.35), Section 30(3), 35 (1) (c), 36 (4) and 43 (1).

Citations:

[1961] UKHL TC – 39 – 707

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.559964

Slater Ltd and others v Beacontree Commissioners for the General Purposes of Income Tax: CA 20 Feb 2002

Application for leave to appal against penalties imposed for failing to complay with notices requiring the production of documents to the Commissioners.

Judges:

Robert Walker LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 259

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216855

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Laird Group Plc: ChD 13 Mar 2001

It was difficult to reconcile different decisions of the higher courts. Nevertheless, the declaration and payment of a dividend which did not involve any transaction in securities, or alteration of rights attaching to securities, was not itself a dealing in securities. The arrangement involved the declaration of abnormally large dividends in purchasing another company so as to create franked income which it could then set off against its own liability to tax at tax rates applicable to its group. If a payment operated to extinguish a security, it might become such a transaction, but in this case it had not.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2001, Gazette 20-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 706

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.82347

Sempra Metals Ltd (formerly Metallgesellshaft Ltd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners and another: ChD 16 Jun 2004

The claimants were due to have substantial sums repaid after it had been found that the system of making premature reclaims of advance corporation tax had been was discriminatory under European Law.
Held: The sums payable were to carry interest calculated on a compound interest basis.

Judges:

Park J

Citations:

Times 25-Jun-2004, [2004] EWHC 2387 (Ch), [2004] STI 1495, [2004] Eu LR 939, [2004] BTC 358, [2004] STC 1178

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At First InstanceSempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another HL 18-Jul-2007
The parties agreed that damages were payable in an action for restitution, but the sum depended upon to a calculation of interest. They disputed whether such interest should be calculated on a simple or compound basis. The company sought compound . .
Appeal fromSempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue and Another CA 12-Apr-2005
The court was asked whether it was contrary to Community law – specifically, the provisions then contained in article 52 of the EC Treaty (now renumbered as article 43) – for the domestic tax law in the United Kingdom to differentiate, in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, European, Corporation Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198393

Mellham Ltd v Collector of Taxes: CA 17 Jan 2003

Buxton LJ: ‘The issue therefore is one of simple statutory construction. Can the expression ‘payment’ when used in section 87 of the 1970 Act, or ‘pays’ when used both in section 246N(2) of the 1988 Act and section 239 of the 1988 Act, encompass a set-off of the sort that the appellant asserts? In order to succeed, the appellant has to establish, both that those statutory references to payment or paying can potentially include a situation of set-off; and that also that in this case ‘set-off’ was in fact available to the appellant. In my judgment, the appellant fails on both of those scores.’

Judges:

Buxton LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 173

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes management Act 1970 87

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHanak v Green CA 1958
A builder was sued for his failure to complete the works he had contracted for. The buider sought a set-off against that claim of three of his one claims. One, under the contract, was for losses from the defendant’s refusal to allow his workmen . .
CitedAries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd; The Aries HL 1977
Claims for freight charges are an exception to the general rule that all claims between parties must be resolved in one action. A claim for freight cannot be a claim ‘on the same grounds’ as a counter-claim for loss or damage arising out of the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromBurton (Collector of Taxes) v Mellham Ltd HL 15-Feb-2006
The claimant sought interest on an overpayment of Advance Corporation Tax. The tax itself had been paid late, and the Collector claimed a set off.
Held: The claim to DTR could not be described as an attempt at self-help. It had a statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181110

Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt Steinfurt: ECJ 12 Dec 2002

German law taxed interest paid on loan repayments made by a company against a loan from a shareholder, but only where the shareholder was not resident in the same country as the company. The tax authority took the view that the payments were a equivalent to a covert distribution of profits.
Held: This was discriminatory, and offended the principal of freedom of establishment. It was wrong to compare the position of a company trading for profit with corporations exempt from corporation tax. Reduction in tax revenue is not an overriding reason in the public interest capable of justifying a measure contravening a fundamental principle.

Judges:

Wathelet, President, Timmermans, Edward, Jann and Rosas JJ

Citations:

Times 27-Dec-2002, C-324/00, [2002] EUECJ C-324/00, [2002] ECR I-11779, [2003] STC 607

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedFoulser and Another v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 20-Dec-2005
The taxpayer company entered into an arrangement in which shares were purchased by a company based in Ireland and resold. A claim was made for holdover relief.
Held: The scheme failed. The restriction imposed did not infringe the right of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Corporation Tax, Company

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178612

Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna: ECJ 26 Oct 1999

Freedom to provide services – Commercial tax on capital and operating profit – Reinstatement in tax base – Exemption not applicable to lessee of property whose owner is established in another Member State and therefore not subject to tax

Citations:

C-294/97, [1999] EUECJ C-294/97, [1999] ECR I-7447

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedFoulser and Another v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 20-Dec-2005
The taxpayer company entered into an arrangement in which shares were purchased by a company based in Ireland and resold. A claim was made for holdover relief.
Held: The scheme failed. The restriction imposed did not infringe the right of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162207

Manufacturers Life Assurance Company v Cummins (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 22 Nov 2000

The tax exemption attracted to interest on some government securities in favour of foreign residents was lost by a foreign resident company when it carried on a long term life assurance business here on a mutual basis through an office here. The interest was taxable under Schedule C. The business profits restriction in the Act was the income minus expenditure basis. The business described was a trade.

Citations:

Times 22-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Finance Act 1940 60

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83390

Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Kahn and Another: CA 23 Mar 2000

Appeal against an order of Mr Justice Evans-Lombe on an application made pursuant to section 112(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 by the joint liquidators of Toshoku Finance UK Plc (‘the Company’) for directions in relation to the discharge of an alleged liability to corporation tax on interest receivable after the commencement of the winding up.

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 86

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 112(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Insolvency

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147119

Ensign Tankers (Leasing) Ltd v Stokes (Inspector of Taxes): HL 6 May 1992

The appellants entered into partnerships with a film production company. By doing so they intended to make available to themselves first year allowances on the capital expenditure incurred. Loan agreements protected them from any eventual loss.
Held: Money which had been spent mainly for trading had the benefit of the tax allowances whatever the motive behind for structure of the transactions. Even if a fiscal motive was the sole or paramount motive for a transaction, that would not deprive the action of its proper nature. The legal effect was of a trading transaction with a capital expenditure, and the case was remitted for consideration on that basis. A composite transaction which could fairly be described as involving a ‘conjuring trick’, artificiality and self-cancelling elements, should nonetheless not be called a sham, in the relevant sense.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley

Citations:

Gazette 06-May-1992, [1992] 1 AC 655, [1992] CLY 611, [1992] 2 WLR 469, [1992] STC 226

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedCraven (IOT) v White (Stephen); Inland Revenue Commissioners v Bowater Property Developments HL 1989
In Craven, the taxpayers owned shares in Q Ltd. In early 1976 they began to negotiate with C Ltd for a merger of the two companies and steps were taken to establish an Isle of Man holding company to act as a vehicle for the taxpayers’ shares should . .
CitedW T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .

Cited by:

CitedNew Angel Court Ltd v Adam (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 25-Jul-2003
The taxpayer company employed a subsidiary company through which it conducted its trade in land. It then sought to represent the profits from that subsidiary within its own accounts as trading profits for corporation tax purposes. The commissioner . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v Dempster (T/A Boulevard) ChD 24-Jan-2008
The revenue wished to refuse a claim to set off input tax for two transactions involving the alleged purchase of software. They said the transactions were a sham.
Held: The revenue’s appeal failed.
Briggs J said: ‘the critical question . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80334

Carr (Inspector of Taxes) v Armpledge Ltd; Same v Fielden and Ashworth Ltd: CA 24 May 2000

Where a company sought to claim reliefs going back over different tax years, there was no rule requiring such reliefs to be claimed chronologically, but the company could arrange the claims against the several tax years as they best thought fit. There was no express power to order them, but the test was the absence of any law requiring a particular order to be used. The section dealt with only one claim, and said nothing about how two claims should be ordered.

Citations:

Times 24-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 156

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 239(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromCarr (Inspector of Taxes) v Armpledge Ltd; Same v Fielden and Ashworth Ltd ChD 12-Oct-1998
A company’s settlement of its tax affairs had to be dealt with in chronological order even though it would be from it’s point of view more tax efficient to have them dealt with in reverse order. No right of choice was given to a taxpayer. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78912

Bradley (Inspector of Taxes) v London Electricity Plc: ChD 1 Aug 1996

A distinction is to be found between the construction of plant and the equipment installed. The Court should examine the function of a structure to decide if it was a plant or a building for allowance.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Oct-1996, Times 01-Aug-1996

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 24

Corporation Tax

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78546

Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 22 Jul 2002

The taxpayer sought to claim for capital allowances of andpound;91 million for gas pipelines. The claimant had provided the equipment through a leasing scheme.
Held: The leases were unusual, but did not appear to be merely part of a tax avoidance scheme. However, here the company already owned and operated the pipeline, and continued to do so after the arrangement. It owed the money before, and still owed it afterwards. The issue was whether the company had incurred the expenditure in provision of the pipeline, and practitioners should be careful not to lose themselves in the technical minutiae of the documentation. This was merely financial engineering, and did not qualify: ‘If corporation tax rates changed, the head lease rent payable to BMBF would change but the sublease rent payable by BGE (UK) would remain the same. If I have understood correctly how it would work, if the head lease rent went up BGE (UK) would still pay the full amount of the sublease rent to BMBF, and the balance of the (now) increased head lease rent would be paid by BGE to BMBF; if the head lease rent went down BGE (UK) would pay part of the sublease rent to BMBF (that part being equal to the (now) reduced head lease rent) and would pay the balance of the sublease rent to BGE.’

Judges:

Park J

Citations:

Times 26-Aug-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWHC Ch 1525, [2003] STC 66

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 24(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedW T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
CitedMcNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd CA 26-Oct-1998
Cross loans were made between an investment company and pension schemes. The overall effect was to create payments which could be set off against Corporation Tax. They were not a pre-ordained series of transactions where the underlying loans were . .

Cited by:

Awaiting AppealBMBF (No 24) Limited v the Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 6-Nov-2003
The taxpayer, a non-resident, operated a sale and lease back scheme of machinery to be used in its business within the UK. There had been a chain of leases.
Held: The court had first to identify the ‘relevant lease’. It was the head lease . .
Appeal fromBarclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson, HM Inspector of Taxes CA 13-Dec-2002
The taxpayer entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement in respect of a gas pipeline, and sought to set off the costs as a capital allowance.
Held: The company’s appeal succeeded: ‘There is nothing in the statute to suggest that ‘up-front . .
At first instanceBarclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (HM Inspector of Taxes) HL 25-Nov-2004
The company had paid substantial sums out in establishing a gas pipeline, and claimed those sums against its tax as capital allowances. The transaction involved a sale and leaseback arrangement which the special commissioners had found to be a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.174737

Dunlop International Ag v Pardoe (Inspector of Taxes): CA 5 Oct 1999

Where a company ceased to be resident in the UK, and there was deemed as a result to be a transfer of shares between companies within the group, that transfer gave rise to a chargeable gain which was chargeable to Corporation Tax.

Citations:

Times 05-Oct-1999

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 178

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80173

Dale (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Johnson Brothers: 1951

(Year?) The taxpayer claimed an industrial buildings allowance against his tax liabilities for a warehouse used as storage as a trade in itself. Two thirds of the use was for storage of finished goods awaiting collection or delivery. The taxpayers were the sole selling agents for various manufacturers and were obliged under the agreement with them to store sufficient products to enable prompt delivery to be made to customers. They relied on s.8(1)(d)(iii) of the 1945 Act.
Held: The claim was rejected. The trade carried on at the warehouse was not storage alone, but also the disposal of the goods as selling agents.
Sheil J said: ‘That Section, so far as it is invoked here, contemplates that the use of the building must be for a trade and that trade, so far as the use is concerned, must be a storage trade. It will not do that the trade is storage plus something else or something else plus storage. It must be simply a keeping or custody. When one considers the use of the two-thirds of this building it cannot be said that there was simply a keeping or custody in that part of it. The agreements required a constant active movement of the goods by the Respondents, a disposal of them by the Respondents ‘

Judges:

Sheil J

Citations:

(1951) 32 TC 487

Statutes:

Income Tax Act 1945 8

Cited by:

CitedRevenue and Customs v Maco Door and Window Hardware (Uk) Ltd ChD 19-Jul-2006
The Revenue sought to disallow for industrial buildings allowance sums expended on warehouse premises which were to be used to store window products imported for use in other manufacturing processes.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal succeeded. ‘The . .
ExplainedCrusabridge Investments Ltd v Casings International Limited 1979
The landlord of light industrial premises sought damages from his tenant for breach of the user covenant in the lease. This permitted the premises to be used, inter alia, as an ‘industrial building or structure’ as defined by the Capital Allowances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244452

Lord Advocate v R W Forsyth Ltd: 1986

The taxpayer appealed his corporation tax assessments and had applied to a special commissioner for postponement of payment. The applications was to be heard in Glasgow, but for convenience it was heard in London, where it failed. The taxpayer then asked the High Court for judicial review of the postponment decisions. At the same time, the Crown had issued summonses in the Court of Session seeking payment of the tax due.
Held: The court granted a decree in favour of the Crown in both proceedings. The High Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The decision of the special commissioner on a Scottish tax case, although sitting for administrative convenience in London, remained subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Scottish court. Confusion could result if more than one court had jurisdiction.

Judges:

Lord Wylie

Citations:

(1986) 61 TC 1

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedTehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The House was asked whether an asylum applicant whose original application was determined in Scotland, but his application for leave to appeal rejected in London, should apply to challenge those decisions in London or in Scotland.
Held: Such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Scotland, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.245384

Cull v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: HL 1940

Lord Atkin said: ‘My Lords, it is now clearly established that in the case of a limited company the company itself is chargeable to tax on its profits, and that it pays tax in discharge of its own liability and not as agent for its shareholders. The latter are not chargeable with income tax on dividends, and they are not assessed in respect of them. The reason presumably is that the amount which is available to be distributed as dividend has already been diminished by tax on the company, and that it is thought inequitable to charge it again.’
Lord Wright said: ‘the shareholder is not taxed under Schedule D in respect of that part of his income which consists of dividends. The profits have been charged to tax in the hands of the company and that fact is deemed to redound to his benefit.’

Judges:

Lord Atkin, Lord Wright

Citations:

[1940] AC 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Corporation Tax

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.573166

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Barclay Curle and Co Ltd: 1969

Even a large structure used for the purposes of the trade may be capable of being plant. In this case a dry dock was used in trade of ship builders, ship repairers and marine engineers.

Citations:

[1969] 1 WLR 675

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedShove (Inspector of Taxes) v Lingfield Park 1991 Ltd ChD 21-Jul-2003
The taxpayer, a race track owner, sought to claim the cost of laying an artificial all-weather race track surface as a capital allowance. The commissioners had found that it retained a separate identity from the grass, requiring maintenance and so . .
CitedGray (Inspector of Taxes) v Seymours Garden Centre (Horticulture) CA 31-May-1995
A ‘Planteria’ for the growing and storage of plants pending sale was premises, or a building, and not plant; no allowance was available. In considering the appeal, ‘the question for this Court, as it was for the Judge, is whether the facts found by . .
CitedLingfield Park (1991) Limited v Shove CA 31-Mar-2004
The taxpayers sought capital allowances on the costs of installing an artificial all-weather race track.
Held: The track was not either plant or machinery, and the taxpayer was not eligible for the relief. The only reasonable conclusion was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185850

Wimpy International Ltd v Warland: 1988

Expenditure on modernising restaurants with shop fronts, floor and wall tiles, wall finishes, suspended ceilings, raised floors, fire doors and fire proofings was held not to be plant. The court asked what marks indicate that a structure premises of plant, for capital allowances purposes: ‘It is proper to consider the function of the item in dispute. But the question is what does it function as? If it functions as part of the premises it is not plant.’

Judges:

Hoffmann J, Fox LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[1988] SDTC 149, (1988) 61 TC 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedShove (Inspector of Taxes) v Lingfield Park 1991 Ltd ChD 21-Jul-2003
The taxpayer, a race track owner, sought to claim the cost of laying an artificial all-weather race track surface as a capital allowance. The commissioners had found that it retained a separate identity from the grass, requiring maintenance and so . .
CitedLingfield Park (1991) Limited v Shove CA 31-Mar-2004
The taxpayers sought capital allowances on the costs of installing an artificial all-weather race track.
Held: The track was not either plant or machinery, and the taxpayer was not eligible for the relief. The only reasonable conclusion was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185847

Coates v Arndale Properties Ltd: 1984

A transaction might be so clearly inspired by fiscal considerations that its shape and character as a trading transaction would be insufficient to preserve its tax value as such.

Citations:

[1984] 1 WLR 1328

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNew Angel Court Ltd v Adam (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 25-Jul-2003
The taxpayer company employed a subsidiary company through which it conducted its trade in land. It then sought to represent the profits from that subsidiary within its own accounts as trading profits for corporation tax purposes. The commissioner . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185842

Strathedin Properties Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Jun 2018

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Profits – connected parties – sale of property below market value – assessments appealed – valuation being the only ground of appeal – matter referred to Lands Tribunal – agreement on valuation before hearing – whether Consent Order on valuation can be characterised as a s 54 TMA agreement; yes – (a) common intention to reach agreement over a particular matter; (b) agreement in relation to the assessments under appeal; (c) agreement competent to fix quantum of assessments and to dispose of substantive matter under appeal – settlement of appeals ensued within the statutory context of – ‘like consequences’ – A’s application to amend grounds of appeal refused

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 293 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619364

United States v Apple Sales International and Others: ECJ 17 May 2018

State Aid – Aid Implemented By Ireland In Favour of Apple – Order – Appeal – Intervention – Third country – State aid – Aid implemented by Ireland in favour of Apple – Advance tax agreement (tax ruling) – Selective tax advantages – Action for annulment – Interest in the result of the case

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:330, [2018] EUECJ C-12/18P-I – CO

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial, Corporation Tax

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616985

Uppercut Films Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Apr 2018

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other – CORPORATION TAX – appeal against paragraph 1 Schedule 36 information notice – whether burden of proof on HMRC – whether documents reasonably required for the purpose of checking the appellant’s tax position – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 232 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609291

Attwood (Inspector of Taxes) v Anduff Car Wash Ltd: ChD 11 Dec 1995

No capital allowances for car wash structures. They were part of premises, not plant.

Judges:

Carnwath J

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-1995

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 22 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromH M Inspector of Taxes (Atwood) v Anduff Car Wash Limited CA 17-Jul-1997
Capital allowances.
The taxpayer operated automatic car wash sites. It claimed capital allowances for the entirety of a wash hall, housed within a building incorporating washing machinery and control equipment, and surrounded by tarmac areas . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.78021

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Banque Internationale A Luxembourg Sa: QBD 27 Jul 2000

The commissioners obtained court orders directing the applicant bank to disclose confidential information in their possession. The bank resisted on the ground that the demand breached their rights to confidentiality and to privacy. Although the orders did infringe the Bank’s article 8 rights, the notices were valid because the interference was justified under article 8(2). The notices were served in accordance with law, and were justified in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary in a democratic system for protecting the taxation system.

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-2000

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Taxes Management Act 1970, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

Corporation Tax, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85321

Nuclear Electric Plc v Bradley (Inspector of Taxes): HL 29 Mar 1996

The income from investments set aside to cover future liabilities was not trading income.

Citations:

Gazette 09-May-1996, Times 29-Mar-1996

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 393(8)

Citing:

Appeal fromNuclear Electric Plc v Bradley (Inspector of Taxes) CA 13-Nov-1995
Income on funds set aside but not allocated for expenditure not trading income . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84383

Revenue and Customs v Investec Asset Finance Plc and Investec Bank Plc (Tax): UTTC 4 Apr 2018

Corporation tax – Purchase by traders of partnership interests and adherence to partnerships followed by realisation and distribution by partnerships of receivables – whether purchase price of partnership interests and contributions to capital of partnerships were capital or revenue expenditure – if revenue, whether incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of traders’ trades – if revenue incurred wholly and exclusively, whether HMRC entitled to raise further issue not in closure notice – whether partnership profits distributed to traders subject to two tax computations

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 69 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608590

Travel Document Service and Ladbroke Group International v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 20 Mar 2018

The tax payers had become involved in tax arrangements later fund to be tax avoidance.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘the materials before the FTT did not justify the attribution of any of the debits claimed by LGI to anything other than the ‘unallowable purpose’. LGI never supplied particulars of what loan(s) it claimed would have been made to it at what rate(s) of interest and for what period(s) had it not adopted the Deloitte scheme. No such details were, for example, given in LGI’s Notice of Appeal to the FTT, which simply contended that ‘the deductions for interest are allowable for corporation tax purposes’ and that ‘the non-trading loan relationship debits should be allowed against trading profits’. Again, Mr Turner’s witness statement said that the Novations ‘could have been replaced by the payment of dividends’, but did not expand on how or, in particular, what (if anything) LGI would have borrowed for the purpose. ‘

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 549

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606480

Merou Papa Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Assessment/Self-Assessment): FTTTx 23 Nov 2017

CORPORATION TAX – application for ‘closure’ notices – para 33 of Schedule 18 to FA 1998 – whether there was a valid enquiry notice under para 24 of Schedule 18 to FA 1998; no – Tribunal has no jurisdiction to exercise – application refused

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 842 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.600968

Landid Property Ltd, Allen (Concrete) Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Sep 2017

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Employment Income – Income tax, PAYE, NICs and corporation tax – Employee Benefit Trusts – whether contributions to sub-funds established for individual employees or loans from sub-funds to those employees constituted earnings for income tax and NIC purposes – whether corporation tax deduction available

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 692 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598979

Piggott (Inspector of Taxes) v Staines Investment Ltd: ChD 1 Mar 1995

An arrangement which had the effect of mitigating tax by a pre-ordained series of steps was nevertheless upheld as valid. Transactions were not caught by anti-avoidance provisions, where they were not in fact one composite whole.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Mar-1995, Times 07-Feb-1995

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 239

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.84733

Harrydev Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 Aug 2017

(Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other) INCOME TAX – CORPORATION TAX – Sch 36 Notices – reasonably required – higher threshold of ‘reason to suspect’ under para 21(6) -documents required to transfer ownership of land – meaning of failure to comply so as to incur a penalty – Sch 36 Notices partly upheld, partly set aside – penalties upheld.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 616 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592643

Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs: Admn 29 Jun 2017

Judges:

Green J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1476 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoGlencore Energy UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Leave to appeal) Admn 29-Jun-2017
The parties disputed the power of the court to grant leave to appeal against its own decision. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588878

Commission v Italy C-540/07: ECJ 19 Nov 2009

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Free movement of capital Article 56 EC Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement Direct taxation Withholding at source on outgoing dividends Set-off at the place of establishment of the recipient of the dividend, pursuant to a convention for the avoidance of double taxation

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ C-540/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OpinionCommission v Italy C-540/07 ECJ 16-Jul-2009
ECJ (Taxation) Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations) Free movement of capital Article 56 EC Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement Direct taxation Withholding tax on outgoing dividends Deduction to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588172