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 respect of the US tax which had been paid by its US parent on the same profits. The Commissioners submitted that domestic law did not apply to ‘source’ for the purpose of article 23, because article 23 contained its own comprehensive clause for defining ‘source’: it was a free-standing treaty concept which applied for all the purposes of that article. Held; The court accepted the submission.
Arden LJ said that ‘article 23(3) contains its own rule as to how source [is] to be determined, save where tax has been imposed on the basis of citizenship’.
Judges:
Arden, Pitchford, Tomlinson LJJ
Citations:
[2011] EWCA Civ 304, [2012] Bus LR 796, [2011] STI 1208, 13 ITL Rep 747, [2012] 1 WLR 1630, [2011] STC 717, [2011] BTC 242
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Bayfine UK v Revenue and Customs ChD 23-Mar-2010
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Income Tax, International
Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430825