DTL Supplies Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Anti-Avoidance): FTTTx 12 May 2016

FTTTx Corporation tax – VAT – payment of advertising costs – full amount not paid – tax avoidance scheme -held – payment not for business purposes – not creditable input tax – not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business – appeals dismissed.

[2016] UKFTT 351 TC
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax, VAT

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564825

Benham (Specialist Cars) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Appeal): FTTTx 9 May 2016

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – declaration under s.153A TCGA 1992 (business assets roll-over relief) ceasing to have effect – s.153A(4) providing that all necessary adjustment shall be made – whether that provides for a ‘free-standing’ power or alternatively incorporates a reference to the assessment and amendment powers in Sch. 18, FA 1998 – held s.153A(4) TCGA incorporates such a reference – HMRC’s decision under s.153A(4), the subject of the appeal, purporting to be an amendment to the Appellant’s self-assessment in its company tax return, of no effect as no power under Sch. 18 FA 1998 enabled the making of it – there being no provision for an appeal against that decision, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the appeal is therefore struck out

[2016] UKFTT 330 TC
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564820

Aures Holdings v Odvolaci financni reditelstvi: ECJ 27 Feb 2020

Tax Legislation – Corporation Tax – Transfer of A Company’s Place of Effective Management To A Member State Other Than Its Registered Seat – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Corporation tax – Transfer of a company’s place of effective management to a Member State other than its registered seat – Transfer of tax residency to that other Member State – National legislation not allowing a tax loss incurred in the Member State of incorporation before the transfer of its seat to be claimed

C-405/18, [2020] EUECJ C-405/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:127, [2019] EUECJ C-405/18_O
Bailii, Bailii
European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654754

Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs: SC 25 Jul 2018

PAC sought to recover excess advance corporation tax paid under a UK system contrary to EU law. It was now agreed that some was repayable but now the quantum. Five issues separated the parties.
Issue I: does EU law require the tax credit to be set by reference to the overseas tax actually paid, as HMRC submit, or by reference to the foreign nominal tax rate (‘FNR’), as PAC submits?
Held: HMRC Appeal dismissed: credit for foreign dividends should be by reference to the FNR, rather than by reference to the actual or effective tax incurred overseas.
Issue II: Was compound interest payable on tax levied in breach of EU law, on the basis that HMRC were unjustly enriched by the opportunity to use the money in question?
Held: HMRC’s appeal Allowed. Sempra Metals Ltd v IRC failed to allow for several features, and there were later inconsistent developments and cases.
Issue III: does a claim in restitution lie to recover lawful ACT which was set against unlawful mainstream corporation tax?
Held: No. HMRC’s appeal was allowed. Setting the unlawful MCT against the lawful ACT was not enough to qualify as a ‘San Giorgio’ claim.
Following Issue I, Issue IV did not arise.
Issue V(a): where ACT from a pool including unlawful and lawful ACT is set against an unlawful MCT liability, is the unlawful ACT regarded as a pre-payment of the unlawful MCT liability or is the ACT so utilised regarded as partly lawful and unlawful pro rata?
Held: PAC’s cross-appeal was allowed. . Unlawful ACT is set first against unlawful MCT. Because unlawful MCT is a nullity, the unlawful ACT is recoverable unless it has been set against a lawful MCT charge.
Issue V(b): Is domestic FII when carried back to an earlier quarter, to be treated as having been applied to relieve the lawful and unlawful ACT pro rata, or only lawful ACT?
Held: PAC’s cross-appeal allowed. Domestic FII carried back to an earlier quarter is to be applied to relieve only lawful ACT. HMRC’s pro rata approach would deprive a company of the tax credit at the FNR required under EU law.

Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge
[2018] UKSC 39, [2018] WLR(D) 527, [2018] STC 1657, [2019] AC 929, [2018] 3 WLR 652, [2018] BTC 31, [2018] STI 1499, UKSC 2016/0102
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018 Feb 20 am Video, SC 2018 Feb 20 pm Video, SC 2018 Feb 21 am Video, SC 2018 Feb 21 pm Video
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 231(1) 238(1) 239
England and Wales
Citing:
At CAThe Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 19-Apr-2016
The issues on this appeal all relate to what have been called ‘portfolio holdings’; that is to say dividends paid on shares in foreign companies held as investments, where the investor holds less than 10 per cent of the voting power in the company . .
CitedMetallgesellschaft Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another Hoechst Ag and Another v Same ECJ 8-Mar-2001
The British law which meant that non-resident parent companies of British based businesses were not able to recover interest on payments of advance corporation tax, was discriminatory against other European based companies. Accordingly the law was . .
CitedTest Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v CIR ECJ 12-Dec-2006
ECJ (Opinion of Geelhoed AG) Interpretation of Articles 43 and 56 EC and Articles 4(1) and 6 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent . .
CitedAmministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Spa San Giorgio ECJ 9-Nov-1983
ECJ Questions submitted for a preliminary ruling – reference to the court – right of every national court – stage of the proceedings before the national court – nature of the decision to be given by the national . .
CitedThe Test Claimants In The CFC and Dividend Group Litigation v Inland Revenue ECJ 23-Apr-2008
First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – Direct taxation – Corporation tax – Share dividends paid to a resident company by a non-resident company – Rules on controlled . .
CitedHaribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel BetriebsgmbH and Another v Linz ECJ 10-Feb-2011
Free movement of capital – Corporation tax – Exemption of nationally-sourced dividends – Exemption of foreign-sourced dividends only if certain conditions are complied with – Application of an imputation system to non’exempt foreign’sourced . .
CitedTest 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 . .
CitedTest Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Another ECJ 13-Nov-2012
Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU – Payment of dividends – Corporation tax – Case C-446/04 – Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation – Interpretation of the judgment – Prevention of economic double taxation – Equivalence of the exemption and . .
Overruled in PartSempra 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 . .
CitedWestdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council HL 22-May-1996
Simple interest only on rate swap damages
The bank had paid money to the local authority under a contract which turned out to be ultra vires and void. The question was whether, in addition to ordering the repayment of the money to the bank on unjust enrichment principles, the court could . .
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 . .
CitedMorris-Garner and Another v One Step (Support) Ltd SC 18-Apr-2018
The Court was asked in what circumstances can damages for breach of contract be assessed by reference to the sum that the claimant could hypothetically have received in return for releasing the defendant from the obligation which he failed to . .
CitedJohnson v Unisys Ltd HL 23-Mar-2001
The claimant contended for a common law remedy covering the same ground as the statutory right available to him under the Employment Rights Act 1996 through the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The statutory system for compensation for unfair . .
CitedFleming (T/A Bodycraft) v Revenue and Customs HL 23-Jan-2008
The transitional rules introducing time limits for failing to deduct VAT inputs made insufficient allowance for the decisions in Marks and Spencer and Grundig.
Held: Lord Hope said: ‘To be compatible with EU law, taxpayers were entitled to be . .
CitedLittlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v The Investment Trust Companies SC 11-Apr-2017
Certain investment trust companies (ITCs) sought refunds of VAT paid on the supply of investment management services. EU law however clarified that they were not due. Refunds were restricted by the Commissioners both as to the amounts and limitation . .
CitedLittlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs (No 2) ChD 28-Mar-2014
The claimants had recovered very substantial overpayments made of VAT. They sought recovery of compound interest. The ECJ, on reference, said that this was a matter for national law.
Held: The claim succeeded. The sections of the 1994 Act were . .
CitedLittlewoods Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 21-May-2015
The company sought repayment by way of restitution for overpaid taxes. The tax had been repaid, but only as simple interest, and not compounded. Both parties now appealed from a decision that the Act did not apply to exclude under sections 78 and 80 . .
CitedMoses v Macferlan KBD 1760
An action for money had and received will only lie where it is inequitable for the defendant to retain the money. The defendant in an action for money had and received ‘can be liable no further than the money he has received’. . .
CitedWalker v Constable 20-Jun-1798
. .
CitedBanque Financiere De La Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd and Others HL 16-Apr-1998
The making of an order for restitution after finding an unjust enrichment by subrogation, is not dependant upon having found any common or unilateral intention of the parties. The House distinguished between contractual subrogation of the kind most . .
CitedWalker v Constable 20-Jun-1798
. .
CitedDepcke v Munn And Another 4-Feb-1828
Lord Tenterden CJ said: ‘the courts have held again and again that interest cannot be recovered in an action for money had and received . . This has been decided so often, that I cannot now venture to allow the question to be agitated.’ . .
CitedFibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd HL 15-Jun-1942
A contract for the supply by the respondents of special machinery to be manufactured by them was treated as an ordinary contract for the sale of goods. It began valid, but suffered frustration by the outbreak of war.
Held: Lord Wright restated . .
CitedBP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) 1979
The contract between the parties relating to an oil concession in Libya had been frustrated by the nationalisation of the field.
Held: The court considered the setting of damages where the plaintiff had delayed in notifying the defendant of . .
CitedRiches v Westminster Bank Ltd HL 1947
The amount of interest payable on compulsory purchase of land depends upon the value given to the land and the length of the period from the time of entry until reinstatement, the period during which the claimant is dispossessed. During that time, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, European, Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.620139

Spring Capital Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 13 Apr 2016

INFORMATION NOTICE – daily penalties – whether further time for compliance allowed – whether abuse of process to raise issues that could have been raised in earlier appeal – whether penalties should imposed while appeal outstanding – to what extent if any partial compliance should reduce penalties – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 232 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562875

Easinghall Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 1 Mar 2016

UTTC Corporation Tax – para 33 Sch 18 FA 98 – application for closure notice – discovery assessment made before enquiry opened – settled by agreement under s 54 Taxes Management Act 1970 – effect of settlement on scope and possible conclusions of enquiry – Olin v Scorer considered

[2016] UKUT 105 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562431

Bristol and West Plc v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Apr 2013

FTTTx Corporation Tax – Novation of swaps from transferor within the regime of FA 2002 to transferee in the same group but not yet within that regime – whether adjustments to return precluded by issue of closure notice in error – application of paragraph 28 Schedule 26 – treatment of existing accruals at the time of the novation if the novation was disregarded – secondary computational issue – Appeal dismissed

[2013] UKFTT 216 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.472796

Bristol and West Plc v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 14 Feb 2014

UTTC Taxation of profits made on sale or transfer of derivatives under Finance Act 2002. Whether transfer disregarded between subsidiaries where one of the companies is not subject to the regime under the 2002 Act. Closure Notice – whether effective when sent by mistake known to the tax payer company.
Held: The transfer was not to be disregarded for the purposes of the 2002 Act but the Closure Notice was effective and prevented HMRC from seeking to claim tax in that tax year arising out of the transfer between the two companies. Appeal allowed.

Peter Smith J
[2014] UKUT 73 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.523483

Key IP Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Nov 2011

CORPORATION TAX – EXPENSES – Legal costs of bringing defamation proceedings – Legal costs paid solely by the Appellant company but both the Appellant company and its sole director named as claimants in the defamation proceedings – Defamation proceedings alleging that defendants had published a defamatory statement to the effect that the Appellant company’s sole director had lied to clients – Whether legal costs of defamation proceedings were ‘wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade or profession’ (ICTA s.74) – yes in the particular circumstances of the case – Appeal allowed

[2011] UKFTT 715 (TC)
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.449663

Inland Revenue v Butterley Co Ltd: HL 19 Apr 1956

Profits Tax – Computation of profits – Company carrying on a number of trades-Nationalisation of colliery undertaking – Interim income payments under Coal Industry Acts, 1946 and 1949 – Finance Act, 1937 (1 Edw. VIII and 1 Geo. VI, c. 54), Sections 19 and 20 (1) and Fourth Schedule, Paragraph 7 ; Finance Act, 1947 (10

[1956] UKHL TC – 36 – 411
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560142

Shop Direct Group v Revenue and Customs: SC 17 Feb 2016

The Court considered the interpretation of the sections which applied corporation tax to post-cessation receipts. Companies had received from the Inland Revenue substantial repayments of VAT together with interest. There had been reorganisations of the group, the company which had made the overpayment did not exist, and the payee of the repayment had only later come into existent. The parties now disputed liability to income tax on such repayments and the interest. At each earlier stage the group had been found liable to income tax, and they now appealed again, suggesting that the original source of the sums repaid had been trading receipts.
Held: The appeal failed. Section does not contain any implied restriction so limiting the charge to tax on post-cessation receipts falls only on the former trader whose trade was the source of the income. Three reasons supported the conclusion: First, there is nothing in the wording of section 103(1) or (2) which necessitated such implication.
The charge to tax is clear: where a trade has been permanently discontinued, corporation tax shall be charged on ‘sums arising from the carrying on of the trade . . during any period before the discontinuance’. Section 103(1) required only that the sums ‘are received’ after the discontinuance;
it specified the source of the sums falling within the charge but imposed no further restriction
Section 103 was designed to catch the ‘fruit’ of the trade. Its aim was to make sure that sums which a person received, which arose from a discontinued trade and which were not otherwise taxed, were brought into a charge to tax. No sound policy reason had been suggested for confining the charge to the former trader
Thirdly, the neighbouring provisions of section 103 drew a distinction between the person chargeable to tax and the person who had previously carried on the trade. This suggested that the former was not confined to the latter.
Lord Hodge said: ‘In summary, (i) the basic rule in section 103 is that sums arising from the carrying on of the trade before discontinuance are, if received after discontinuance, charged to tax under Case VI of Schedule D; (ii) there is no restriction in section 103 itself on who the recipient of those fruits of the trade may be; (iii) section 106(1) quantifies the section 103 charge at the amount of the consideration or the market value of the rights to such sums when the former trader transfers its rights to those future receipts for value and the subsection imposes the charge on the former trader; and (iv) section 106(2) disapplies section 103 and substitutes Case I of Schedule D only if the transferee company is carrying on the continuing business when it receives the fruits of the trade, which is deemed to have been discontinued.!

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge
[2016] UKSC 7, [2016] BTC 8, [2016] 1 WLR 733, [2016] STC 747, [2016] WLR(D) 83, [2016] STI 393, [2016] 2 All ER 725, [2017] AC 387, UKSC 2014/0110
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 103 106
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTxShop Direct Group and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 14-Feb-2012
FTTTx Corporation tax – receipts of payments in respect of overpaid VAT and statutory interest – whether VAT repayments trading receipts – whether payments in respect of supplies made in discontinued trades . .
CitedBennett v Ogston (HM Inspector of Taxes) HL 30-Apr-1930
Income Tax, Schedule D, Case III – Instalments on moneylender’s promissory notes – Whether such part of instalments falling due after the death of the lender as did not represent repayment of capital was assessable as interest under Case III – . .
At UTTCShop Direct Group, Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v HMRC UTTC 19-Apr-2013
UTTC Corporation Tax: Effect of receipt by trader or successor to trade of sums in respect of VAT repaid under s80 VATA to representative member of VAT group plus interest paid under s78 VATA. Question of . .
CitedCarson (H M Inspector of Taxes) v Cheyney’s Executor HL 25-Nov-1958
Income Tax, Schedule D – Copyright royalties – Payable to executor of author under agreement made in his lifetime – Income Tax Act, 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. VI and 1 Eliz. II, c. 10), Schedule D, Cases III, V and VI. . .
CitedPurchase (H M Inspector of Taxes) v Stainer’s Executorsz HL 29-Nov-1951
HL Income Tax, Schedule D – Film actor and producer-Remuneration including right of participation in profits of, or receipts from, particular films-Sums in respect of such participations paid to executors – . .
CitedThe National Provident Institution v Brown (Surveyor of Taxes) HL 3-Jun-1921
The House was asked (inter alia) whether discounts on certain Treasury Bills could be subject to taxation, on a preceding year basis, for a year in which the taxpayer did not hold or have any transactions in the relevant securities.
Held: The . .
CitedReynolds and Gibson v Crompton (H M Inspector of Taxes), Reynolds and Gibson v Inland Revenue HL 26-Mar-1952
HL Income Tax, Schedule D, and Profits Tax-Profits of trade-Debt taken over at reduced valuation on change of partnership and subsequently recovered in full-Whether profit assessable.
A partnership of cotton . .
CitedHochstrasser (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Mayes ; Jennings v Kinder (HM Inspector of Taxes) HL 20-Nov-1959
A company operated a housing scheme for married employees who made transferred from one part of a country to another. Under the scheme an employee might be offered a loan to assist in the purchase of a house and, provided the house was maintained in . .
CitedAbbott v Philbin (Inspector of Taxes) HL 21-Jun-1960
A company’s senior employees had been given an option to subscribe for its shares at the then current market price, the option being exercisable at any time within the next ten years. The employees were thus incentivised to increase the company’s . .
CitedChinn v Hochstrasser (Inspector of Taxes) HL 11-Dec-1980
The House considered the meaning of the word ‘bounty’ in an income tax context, where it had been used by the courts: ‘My Lords, I would venture to point out that the word ‘bounty’ appears nowhere in the statute. It is a judicial gloss upon the . .
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 . .
At ChDShop Direct Group and Others v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 19-Apr-2013
. .
Appeal fromShop Direct Group v Revenue and Customs CA 11-Mar-2014
The company sought to challenge the assessment to corporation tax of a very large repayment of VAT, together with an even larger amount of interest.
Held: The appeal failed. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560127

Gold Nuts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Feb 2016

INCOME TAX – CORPORATION TAX – preliminary hearing on matters of law – COP9 letter issued to Mr Budhdeo (‘Mr B’) – contractual disclosure offered and refused – whether FTT has jurisdiction to close a ‘COP9 enquiry’ – no -whether HMRC using SA and CT enquiries and Sch 36 Notices to obtain information to allow them to decide whether to prosecute – whether Mr B has Article 6 right not to self-incriminate – yes – whether companies have right not to self-incriminate in reliance on Mr B’s right – no – whether Mr B can refuse to respond to Sch 36 Notices in reliance on that right – no, having considered Funke v France; Saunders v UK; JB v Switzerland; Allen v UK and other ECtHR authorities – whether the Civil Evidence Act and/or the common law changes that answer – no — similar questions about SA and CT enquiries – relevance of answers when Tribunal decides appeals against Sch 36 Notices and related penalties and applications to close enquiries – whether Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) relevant to the above matters in the context of the Tribunal proceedings – no – application for disclosure of HMRC’s information underpinning COP9 letter refused – directions given for substantive hearing of appeals and applications in issue

[2016] UKFTT 8, [2016] Lloyd’s Rep FC 249, [2016] STI 134, [2016] SFTD 371
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoGold Nuts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other) FTTTx 20-Feb-2015
FTTTx PROCEDURE – whether there is an interaction between self-assessment enquiries, corporation tax enquiries and Schedule 36 Notices and penalties on the one hand, and possible criminal prosecution on the other . .
CitedRegina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
CitedSaunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .

Cited by:
See AlsoGold Nuts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other) FTTTx 16-Jan-2017
INCOME TAX – CORPORATION TAX – appeals against Sch 36 Notices and against penalties – applications to close enquiries – whether to stay the appeals and applications behind Mr Budhdeo’s judicial review application – Veolia distinguished – whether . .
See AlsoGold Nuts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Appeals Against Sch 36 Notices and Applications To Close Enquiries) FTTTx 25-Apr-2017
Corporation Tax – Appeals Against Sch 36 Notices and Applications To Close Enquiries . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559925

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Burmah Oil Co Ltd: HL 3 Dec 1981

HL Corporation tax – Chargeable gains – Allowable losses – Tax avoidance scheme involving disposal of shares by parent company following rights issue by subsidiary company – Consideration for rights issue – Whether market value or issue price – Finance Act 1965, s 22(4), Sch 7, para 4 – Whether loss to which scheme gave rise to be disregarded.

[1981] UKHL TC – 54 – 200, 1982 SLT 348, [1982] STC 30, 1982 SC (HL) 114, 54 TC 200, [1982] TR 535, [1980] TR 397
Bailii
Finance Act 1965 22(4)
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedUBS Ag and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 9-Mar-2016
UBS AG devised an employee bonus scheme to take advantage of the provisions of Chapter 2 of the 2003 Act, with the sole purpose other than tax avoidance, and such consequential advantages as would flow from tax avoidance. Several pre-ordained steps . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559846

Payne (Inspector of Taxes) v Barratt Developments (Luton) Ltd: HL 13 Dec 1984

HL Corporation tax – Stock relief – Whether available to builder on stock of houses and flats received from purchasers in part satisfaction of price of new houses, such houses and flats being sold on in existing state – Whether relief excluded for site of house or merely for its unbuilt-on-garden – Finance Act 1976, Sch 5, para 29.

[1984] UKHL TC – 58 – 311, 58 TC 311, [1985] RVR 156, [1985] CILL 156, [1985] 1 All ER 257, [1985] 1 WLR 1, [1985] STC 40
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559851

Gallic Leasing Ltd v Coburn (Inspector of Taxes): HL 28 Nov 1991

hl Corporation tax – Group relief – What constitutes valid claim to group relief and whether such claim had been made within two-year time-limit – Claim made in notice of appeal and accounts without identifying surrendering companies – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, 55 258, 264(l)(c), Taxes Management Act 1970, ss 42(5), 114.

[1991] UKHL TC – 64 – 399, [1991] STC 699, [1991] 1 WLR 1399, [1991] STI 1082, [1992] 1 All ER 336, 64 TC 399
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 55 258 264IC, Taxes Management Act 1970 42(5) 114
England and Wales

Corporation tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559765

Pilkington Brothers v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 21 Jan 1982

Corporation tax – Capital allowances – Scheme for the sale of allowances in respect of a new ship by shipowners to a company having no other connection with shipping – Purchasing company made member of same group as shipowners subsidiary which ordered ship – Whether scheme involved ‘arrangements’ within s 29(1) (b) (ii), Finance Act 1973, such as to render it ineffective.

[1982] UKHL TC – 55 – 705
Bailii
Finance Act 1973
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559771

Stanton Ltd v Drayton Commercial Investment Co Ltd: HL 8 Jul 1982

Corporation tax – Chargeable gains – Disposal of shares acquired in consideration of issue of new share – Whether amount or value of consideration the agreed issue price or other value – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, ss 21 and 265 – Finance Act 1965, Sch 6, para 4(l)(a) – Finance Act 1971, Sch 10, para 10.

[1982] UKHL TC – 55 – 286, [1982] Com LR 198, [1982] 2 All ER 942, [1983] 1 AC 501, [1982] 3 WLR 214, 55 TC 286, [1982] STC 585
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559776

Collard (Inspector of Taxes) v Mining and Industrial Holdings Ltd: HL 13 Apr 1989

HL Double taxation relief – UK resident company in receipt of dividends from companies resident abroad – Whether relief by way of credit to be given for foreign taxes on such dividends before or after advance corporation tax in respect of distributions made by it is set against its liability to corporation tax – Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Australia) Order 1968, (S.I. 1968 No.305), Article 19(1); Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, ss 497(1), 501, 505; Finance Act 1972, 5 85(1), s 100(4) and (6) – Construction of Act – Whether legislative gap to be filled.

[1989] UKHL TC – 62 – 448
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559783

Cole Bros Ltd v Phillips (Inspector of Taxes): HL 11 Mar 1982

HL Corporation tax – Capital allowances – Lighting and other apparatus installed in shop premises – Whether ‘plant’ or ‘setting’ within which merchandise was sold – Finance Act 1971, s 41.

[1982] UKHL TC – 55 – 188, [1982] 1 WLR 1450, 55 TC 188, [1982] STC 307, [1982] 2 All ER 247
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559772

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd: HL 17 Feb 1994

HL Judicial review – Capital allowances – Assurance given by local Inspector that capital allowances would be available under arrangements proposed by Enterprise Zone Property Unit Trust – Earlier letter from Revenue Head Office indicating that local level assurances would not be binding – Inspector’s assurance revoked by Head Office – Whether full and accurate disclosure by applicant for assurance – Whether Revenue bound by assurance – Whether withdrawal of assurance unfair as abuse of power – Capital Allowances Act 1990, s 10A.

[1994] UKHL TC – 66 – 587
Bailii
Capital Allowances Act 1990 10A
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559754

Ben-Odeco v Powlson: HL 27 Jul 1978

Corporation tax – Capital allowances – Machinery and plant – First year allowances – Oil rig – Whether commitment fees and interest on loans form part of expenditure on the provision of machinery or plant – Finance Act 1971 (c 68), s 41(1).

[1978] UKHL TC – 52 – 459, [1978] 2 All ER 1111, [1978] STC 460, [1978] TR 359, [1978] 1 WLR 1093, 52 TC 459
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559762

Coates and Reed (Inspectors of Taxes) v Nova Securities Ltd and Arndale Properties: HL 31 Jan 1985

HL Corporation tax – Group relief – Trading stock – Whether assets acquired as trading stock by one group company from another – Whether prospective capital loss effectively transmuted into a trading loss available for group relief – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, ss 273, 274(1) – Finance Act 1965, Sch 7 para 1(1) and (3).

[1985] UKHL TC – 59 – 516, [1985] 1 WLR 193, [1985] STC 124, [1985] PCC 209, [1985] 1 All ER 686, 59 TC 516
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559758

NAP Holdings UK v Whittles (Inspector of Taxes): HL 17 Nov 1994

HL Corporation Tax – Deductibility of expenditure – Capital or revenue expenditure – Group relief – Individuals involved in a joint venture, several companies being involved – One company advancing funds – Whether those monies deductible as wholly and exclusively expended in the course of a trade – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, s 130.

[1994] UKHL TC – 67 – 166
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 130
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559757

Marks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes): ChD 2 May 2003

Order requiring reference to ECJ.

Park J
[2003] EWHC 1945 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoMarks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (Inspector of Taxes) 2003
Marks and Spencer Plc appealed against the refusal of group relief, on the ground that the statutory limitations on the territorial scope of group relief were incompatible with, and overridden by, Community law. The Special Commissioners dismissed . .

Cited by:
See AlsoMarks and Spencer v David Halsey (Inspector of Taxes) ECJ 13-Dec-2005
ECJ Articles 43 EC and 48 EC – Corporation tax – Groups of companies – Tax relief – Profits of parent companies – Deduction of losses incurred by a resident subsidiary- Allowed – Deduction of losses incurred in . .
See AlsoMarks and Spencer plc v Halsey (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 10-Apr-2006
The court considered the implementation of the ECJ decision between the parties.
Held: The matter was to be remitted to the Special Commissioners. The ‘no possibilities’ test referred to in the ECJ’s judgment required an analysis of the . .
See AlsoMarks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 10-Apr-2006
Preliminary judgment. . .
See AlsoHalsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 20-Feb-2007
The inspector appealed against a decision granting group relief to the taxpayer a UK resident company for losses by a group company in another European state.
Held: The appeal was denied. To refuse group relief in these circumstances would be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, European

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.521601

Marks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes): ChD 10 Apr 2006

Preliminary judgment.

Park J
[2006] EWHC 811 (Ch), 8 ITL Rep 1012, [2006] BTC 346, [2006] 3 CMLR 8, [2006] STC 1235, [2006] STI 1352
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoMarks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (Inspector of Taxes) 2003
Marks and Spencer Plc appealed against the refusal of group relief, on the ground that the statutory limitations on the territorial scope of group relief were incompatible with, and overridden by, Community law. The Special Commissioners dismissed . .
See AlsoMarks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 2-May-2003
Order requiring reference to ECJ. . .
At ECJMarks and Spencer v David Halsey (Inspector of Taxes) ECJ 13-Dec-2005
ECJ Articles 43 EC and 48 EC – Corporation tax – Groups of companies – Tax relief – Profits of parent companies – Deduction of losses incurred by a resident subsidiary- Allowed – Deduction of losses incurred in . .

Cited by:
See AlsoMarks and Spencer plc v Halsey (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 10-Apr-2006
The court considered the implementation of the ECJ decision between the parties.
Held: The matter was to be remitted to the Special Commissioners. The ‘no possibilities’ test referred to in the ECJ’s judgment required an analysis of the . .
See AlsoHalsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 20-Feb-2007
The inspector appealed against a decision granting group relief to the taxpayer a UK resident company for losses by a group company in another European state.
Held: The appeal was denied. To refuse group relief in these circumstances would be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, European

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.521602

Marks and Spencer Plc v HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 21 Jun 2010

UTTC 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 – date of valid claim where series of group relief claims – whether valid group relief claim can be made out of time – application of principle of effectiveness – method of quantifying losses for which group relief claim can be made

Warren J P, Sadler J
[2010] UKUT 213 (TCC), [2010] STC 2470
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTxMarks 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 . .

Cited by:
At UTTCRevenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc SC 22-May-2013
The company wished to assign losses in its European subsidiaries against its profits. Since the losses were first claimed, the subsidiaries had gone into insolvent liquidation.
Held: Lord Hope said: ‘I would answer the first issue by rejecting . .
Appeal fromHM Revenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 14-Oct-2011
The taxpayers claimed relief for losses incurred within their European subsidiaries. The claim having been referred to the ECJ, Moses LJ summarised the issues outstanding: ‘(i) Is the test that the ECJ established to identify those circumstances in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, European

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.428158

Marks and Spencer plc v Halsey (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 10 Apr 2006

The court considered the implementation of the ECJ decision between the parties.
Held: The matter was to be remitted to the Special Commissioners. The ‘no possibilities’ test referred to in the ECJ’s judgment required an analysis of the recognised possibilities legally available given the objective facts of the company’s situation at the relevant time, and that the test was to be applied at the date when the group relief claim was made.

Park J
[2006] STC 1235, [2006] EWHC 811 (Ch)
England and Wales
Citing:
Reference to ECJMarks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (Inspector of Taxes) 2003
Marks and Spencer Plc appealed against the refusal of group relief, on the ground that the statutory limitations on the territorial scope of group relief were incompatible with, and overridden by, Community law. The Special Commissioners dismissed . .
At ECJMarks and Spencer v David Halsey (Inspector of Taxes) ECJ 13-Dec-2005
ECJ Articles 43 EC and 48 EC – Corporation tax – Groups of companies – Tax relief – Profits of parent companies – Deduction of losses incurred by a resident subsidiary- Allowed – Deduction of losses incurred in . .
See AlsoMarks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 2-May-2003
Order requiring reference to ECJ. . .
See AlsoMarks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 10-Apr-2006
Preliminary judgment. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromHalsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 20-Feb-2007
The inspector appealed against a decision granting group relief to the taxpayer a UK resident company for losses by a group company in another European state.
Held: The appeal was denied. To refuse group relief in these circumstances would be . .
See AlsoHM Revenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 14-Oct-2011
The taxpayers claimed relief for losses incurred within their European subsidiaries. The claim having been referred to the ECJ, Moses LJ summarised the issues outstanding: ‘(i) Is the test that the ECJ established to identify those circumstances in . .
See AlsoRevenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc SC 22-May-2013
The company wished to assign losses in its European subsidiaries against its profits. Since the losses were first claimed, the subsidiaries had gone into insolvent liquidation.
Held: Lord Hope said: ‘I would answer the first issue by rejecting . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, European

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.518021

Marks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (Inspector of Taxes): 2003

Marks and Spencer Plc appealed against the refusal of group relief, on the ground that the statutory limitations on the territorial scope of group relief were incompatible with, and overridden by, Community law. The Special Commissioners dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal.

Park J
[2003] STC (SCD) 70
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMetallgesellschaft Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another Hoechst Ag and Another v Same ECJ 8-Mar-2001
The British law which meant that non-resident parent companies of British based businesses were not able to recover interest on payments of advance corporation tax, was discriminatory against other European based companies. Accordingly the law was . .

Cited by:
See AlsoNEC Semi-Conductors Limited and Other Test Claimants v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue ChD 24-Nov-2003
UK companies were subsidiaries of companies resident abroad, and complained that they were unable to make group income elections.
Held: The prohibition infringed non-discrimination provisions of double taxation agreements – non-discrimination . .
At Special ComissionersAutologic 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 . .
Reference fromMarks and Spencer v David Halsey (Inspector of Taxes) ECJ 13-Dec-2005
ECJ Articles 43 EC and 48 EC – Corporation tax – Groups of companies – Tax relief – Profits of parent companies – Deduction of losses incurred by a resident subsidiary- Allowed – Deduction of losses incurred in . .
See AlsoHalsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 20-Feb-2007
The inspector appealed against a decision granting group relief to the taxpayer a UK resident company for losses by a group company in another European state.
Held: The appeal was denied. To refuse group relief in these circumstances would be . .
Reference to ECJMarks and Spencer plc v Halsey (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 10-Apr-2006
The court considered the implementation of the ECJ decision between the parties.
Held: The matter was to be remitted to the Special Commissioners. The ‘no possibilities’ test referred to in the ECJ’s judgment required an analysis of the . .
See AlsoHM Revenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 14-Oct-2011
The taxpayers claimed relief for losses incurred within their European subsidiaries. The claim having been referred to the ECJ, Moses LJ summarised the issues outstanding: ‘(i) Is the test that the ECJ established to identify those circumstances in . .
Reference to ECJRevenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc SC 22-May-2013
The company wished to assign losses in its European subsidiaries against its profits. Since the losses were first claimed, the subsidiaries had gone into insolvent liquidation.
Held: Lord Hope said: ‘I would answer the first issue by rejecting . .
See AlsoMarks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 2-May-2003
Order requiring reference to ECJ. . .
See AlsoMarks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 10-Apr-2006
Preliminary judgment. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, European

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.229077

Revenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc: SC 19 Feb 2014

For the purposes of corporation tax, MandS claimed group relief in respect of losses sustained by two of their subsidiaries, resident in Germany and in Belgium. Lord Hope observed that the claims were originally made and refused by HMRC over ten years before and raised questions about the availability of cross-border group relief and the method of quantifying such relief as was available which, despite having been the subject of nine separate hearings since the case was first considered in December 2002, had still not yet been resolved. This was the tenth such hearing. As to the losses in respect of which relief is sought, the earliest losses relied upon extend back to 1997 in the case of MSD and back to 1998 in the case of MSB.
Held: The company had been entitled to make multiple claims for cross-border group Corporation Tax relief in relation to the same loss incurred in the appropriate accounting periods by its European subsidiary which had gone into liquidation and then, at a later point, to withdraw earlier claims in respect of the same surrendered loss which proved not to meet the subsequent judicially determined test. The remaining condition was that such claims should not be statute-barred.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath
[2014] UKSC 11, [2014] 2 All ER 331, [2014] 1 WLR 711, [2014] STC 819, [2014] BTC 7, [2014] STI 682, [2014] WLR(D) 90
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC summary, SC, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
At ECJMarks and Spencer v David Halsey (Inspector of Taxes) ECJ 13-Dec-2005
ECJ Articles 43 EC and 48 EC – Corporation tax – Groups of companies – Tax relief – Profits of parent companies – Deduction of losses incurred by a resident subsidiary- Allowed – Deduction of losses incurred in . .
At CAHM Revenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 14-Oct-2011
The taxpayers claimed relief for losses incurred within their European subsidiaries. The claim having been referred to the ECJ, Moses LJ summarised the issues outstanding: ‘(i) Is the test that the ECJ established to identify those circumstances in . .
See AlsoRevenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc SC 22-May-2013
The company wished to assign losses in its European subsidiaries against its profits. Since the losses were first claimed, the subsidiaries had gone into insolvent liquidation.
Held: Lord Hope said: ‘I would answer the first issue by rejecting . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, European

Leading Case

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.521992

Vitol Aviation UK Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Application for Closure Notices): FTTTx 27 Sep 2021

Application for closure notices – whether HMRC had sufficient information to close the enquiries – yes – whether the existence of an ongoing diverted profits tax review period provided reasonable grounds for refusing to issue a closure notice – no – application upheld.

[2021] UKFTT 353 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.669757

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Binns: HL 1964

Profits Tax – Gross relevant distributions – Principal and subsidiary companies – Grouping notice followed by division of subsidiary’s accounting period into two chargeable accounting periods by reference to date of entry into group – Dividend declared for second period – Whether apportionable over whole accounting period – Whether retrospective division valid – Finance Act, 1937 (1 Edw. V III and 1 Geo. V I, c. 54), Section 22 ; Finance Act, 1947 (10 and 11 Geo. V I, c. 35), Sections 35(1), 37 and 38.

[1964] UKHL TC – 41 – 598
Bailii
Finance Act 1937
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.559263

Taylor (Inspector of Taxes) v MEPC Holdings Ltd: ChD 12 Jun 2001

The amount of loss available to a company for surrender was restricted to trading losses or capital allowances, and was not to include allowable losses. The sums to be surrendered were those which might appear in a calculation of profits for the period. Therefore allowable losses from previous years activities were not to be brought forward for deduction against chargeable gains.

Rattee J
Times 12-Jun-2001, [2002] STC 430
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 403 (7)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed toTaylor (Inspector of Taxes) v MEPC Holdings Ltd CA 20-Jun-2002
The taxpayer sought to include in the amounts to be set off by surrender against the group’s liability for corporation tax, chargeable gains in respect of allowable losses of a preceding accounting period. They appealed a decision against them at . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromTaylor (Inspector of Taxes) v MEPC Holdings Ltd CA 20-Jun-2002
The taxpayer sought to include in the amounts to be set off by surrender against the group’s liability for corporation tax, chargeable gains in respect of allowable losses of a preceding accounting period. They appealed a decision against them at . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.89732

The Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Another: ChD 14 Oct 2015

Henderson J
[2015] EWHC 2883 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At ChDFranked Investment Income Group Litigation, The Test Claimants In v Revenue and Customs CA 24-Nov-2016
. .
At ChDLittlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, European, Costs

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553500

Farnborough Airport Properties Company Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Exemptions and Reliefs): FTTTx 17 Jun 2016

CORPORATION TAX – Group Relief – Section 154 CTA 2010 – Appointment of receivers over the whole of the property of a company – Whether Effect 2 of section 154(3) of CTA 2010 engaged? – Yes – Whether group relief could be surrendered to the Appellants? – No – Appeals dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 431 (TC), [2016] SFTD 826
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.566693

Groupe Steria v Ministere des finances et des comptes publics: ECJ 2 Sep 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tax legislation – Freedom of establishment – Directive 90/435/EEC – Article 4(2) – Cross-border distributions of dividends – Corporation tax – Group taxation (French integration fiscale) – Tax exemption for dividends paid by subsidiaries belonging to the tax-integrated group – Residence qualification – Dividends paid by non-resident subsidiaries – Non-deductible costs and expenses relating to the holding

[2015] EUECJ C-386/14
Bailii
Directive 90/435/EEC
Citing:
OpinionGroupe Steria v Ministere des finances et des comptes publics ECJ 11-Jun-2015
(Advocate Generals Opinion) – Tax legislation – Freedom of establishment – Article 4(2) of Directive 90/435/EEC – Cross-border distributions of profits – National corporation tax – Group taxation (French ‘integration fiscale’) – Tax exemption for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.552022

Groupe Steria v Ministere des finances et des comptes publics: ECJ 11 Jun 2015

(Advocate Generals Opinion) – Tax legislation – Freedom of establishment – Article 4(2) of Directive 90/435/EEC – Cross-border distributions of profits – National corporation tax – Group taxation (French ‘integration fiscale’) – Tax exemption for revenue from holdings – Non-deductible charges relating to the holding – Distributions of profits from non-resident subsidiaries

Kokott AG
C-386/14, [2015] EUECJ C-386/14 – O, ECLI:EU:C:2015:392
Bailii
Cited by:
OpinionGroupe Steria v Ministere des finances et des comptes publics ECJ 2-Sep-2015
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tax legislation – Freedom of establishment – Directive 90/435/EEC – Article 4(2) – Cross-border distributions of dividends – Corporation tax – Group taxation . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551985

GDF Suez Teeside Ltd (Formerly Teeside Power Ltd) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Aug 2015

FTTTx Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Profits – Corporation tax – loan relationships- transfer of contingent debt asset – no profit recognised in accounts – s 84 Finance Act 1996 – ‘fairly represents’ profits – whether accepted accounting method – impact of override in s 84 – held – taxpayer’s accounts GAAP compliant – no alternative set of GAAP compliant accounts – FRS 5 substance approach does not produce fair representation of profits- s 84 override applied – appeal dismissed.

[2015] UKFTT 413 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551538

Lloyds Bank Leasing (No1) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Aug 2015

FTTTx Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Capital Allowance – CORPORATION TAX – writing-down allowances – ships – Capital Allowances Act 2001 s 123(4) – whether obtaining of allowance ‘main object, or one of the main objects’ of the relevant transactions – yes – appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 401 (TC)
Bailii
Capital Allowances Act 2001 123(4)
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551542

Luddington Golf Club Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 22 Jul 2015

FTTTx Penalty – late payment of PAYE and NICs – FA 2009 Schedule 56 – whether a reasonable excuse for late payment – no – whether any special circumstances existed to justify a reduction in the penalty amount – no – application to bring a late appeal – appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 361 (TC)
Bailii
Finance Act 2009 Sch56
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550634

Monitor Audio Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Jul 2015

FTTTx Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Exemptions and Reliefs – Corporation tax – small and medium enterprises – enhanced research and development relief at 75% – SME – s 1119 CTA 2009 -Commission Recommendation EC 2003/361 – state aid -interpreted strictly – partner enterprise – meaning of institutional investor -whether must be investing on pooled basis – meaning of venture capital company – Held – Institutional investor not limited to pooled investment vehicles – investment bank and its subsidiary are institutional investors – insufficient evidence to conclude whether subsidiary venture capital company – appeal allowed.

[2015] UKFTT 357 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550567

Abbey National Treasury Services Plc v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jul 2015

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Losses – Corporation tax – loan relationship rules -debit relating to ‘tracker shares’ linked to in the money swap receipts -derecognised for accounting purposes-whether deductible debit for loan relationship rules – legal and accounting concepts of loss – whether arising from derivative contract – whether transfer pricing rules at Schedule 28AA applied to tracker shares – whether shares are a provision for transfer pricing purposes – HELD -Debit did not reflect fair representation of loss from transactions -debit did not arise from derivative contract – transfer pricing rules broad ambit – share issue could amount to a provision – transfer pricing rules applied to issue price of tracker shares – appeal dismissed.

[2015] UKFTT 341 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550557

Spritebeam Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs and Others: UTTC 25 Feb 2015

UTTC CORPORATION TAX – company lends money to another group company on terms that shares are paid to a different group company – is the value of the shares income of the lender under the loan relationship rules? – no, but only because of the effect of s. 80(5) of the Finance Act 1996 – is the value of the shares income of the share recipient? – yes – appeals dismissed.

[2015] UKUT 75 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549071

X Ab v Skatteverket: ECJ 10 Jun 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Corporation tax – Holdings for business purposes – Legislation of a Member State exempting capital gains and, by the same token, excluding deduction of capital losses – Transfer by a resident company of shares in a non-resident subsidiary – Capital loss resulting from a currency loss

C-686/13, [2015] EUECJ C-686/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:375
Bailii
TFEU 49
European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.548010

The Shearer Arms Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 19 Dec 2018

Corporation tax – penalties for late filing of Corporation Tax returns – Appellant delegated preparation and submission of return to accountants who failed to submit the accounts on time – paragraph 23 Schedule 55 FA 2009 – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

[2018] UKFTT 752 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.632475

Gemsupa Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Mar 2015

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – chargeable gains – group relief – sections 170,171 TCGA 1992 – tax avoidance scheme – Ramsay principle – purposive construction of the group relief provisions – whether the transactions fell within the group relief provisions – appeal allowed

[2015] UKFTT 97 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544581

Leekes Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Feb 2015

FTTTx Corporation tax – loss relief on succession to trade – streaming of losses against profits of predecessor trade – interpretation of s 343(3) ICTA – Falmer Jeans v Rodin considered – HELD – No explicit streaming rules in s 343(3) – streaming could not be implied – succession gave rise to single surviving trade – all losses of predecessor available to successor – appeal allowed.

[2015] UKFTT 93 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544571

Bowerswood House Retirement Home Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 26 Jan 2015

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – capital allowances – plant and machinery – conservatory-type enclosure for swimming pool – whether a building or a structure – yes – just and reasonable apportionment of consideration paid for qualifying assets – appeal dismissed, subject to any further hearing necessary to determine the value of the swimming pool

[2015] UKFTT 94 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544565

Spring Capital Ltd v Revenue and Customs and Others: FTTTx 10 Feb 2015

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – deductions for amortisation of goodwill – Schedule 29 FA 2002 – whether goodwill purchased on a transfer of trade in September 2004 or whether a migration of trade – market value of goodwill – principles for determining market value of goodwill on transfer of trade – whether a transfer of trading losses to the appellant under section 343 ICTA 1988 – whether quantum of trading losses can be disputed – effect of undertaking given by HMRC to the Court of Session in other proceedings- construction and effect of the undertaking – Contracts (Third Parties) Act 1999 – whether valid consequential amendment to return to 2008 return under paragraph 34 Schedule 18 FA 1998 – whether valid claims for relief for the purposes of paragraph 51 Schedule 18 FA 1998 – appeals dismissed in relation to deductions for amortisation of goodwill – issue of quantum of losses under section 343 ICTA 1988 adjourned pending outcome of separate appeal by predecessor company

[2015] UKFTT 66 (TC)
Bailii
Contracts (Third Parties) Act 1999
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543227

The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: ChD 26 Jan 2015

Consequential judgment after principle findings in litigation as to issues of liability and quantification arising from the alleged or established invalidity under EU law of various aspects of the UK legislation which governed the taxation of ‘portfolio dividends’ (i.e. dividends derived from holdings of less than 10% of the shares in the companies concerned) paid by companies resident either in the EU, or elsewhere in the world (‘third countries’), to corporate shareholders resident in the UK.

Henderson J
[2015] EWHC 118 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax, European, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541758

Spring Salmon and Seafood Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 29 Oct 2014

UTTC CORPORATION TAX – appeal in FTTx against amendments made by closure notices – jurisdiction – claim for terminal loss relief – denied in closure notices relating to other years – whether jurisdiction to consider the appeal – no – appeal to Upper Tribunal dismissed

[2014] UKUT 488 (TCC), [2014] BTC 529, [2015] STC 563
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539406

Fidex 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

[2014] UKUT 454 (TCC)
Bailii
Finance Act 1996
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal FromFidex 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 – . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromFidex 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, Taxes Management

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539408

Biffa (Jersey) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Oct 2014

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – deemed loan transactions under section 730A ICTA 1988 – whether effect of section 195 FA 2003 that acquisition of own shares disregarded for purposes of section 730A – no – alternatively whether section 27 F(No 2)A 2005 applies in relation to andpound;214,108,391 paid by BCHL to BJL on 25 September 2008 – no – appeal dismissed

[2014] UKFTT 982 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538978

Banco Santander And Santusa v Commission: ECFI 7 Nov 2014

ECJ Judgment – State aid – Provisions relating to corporation tax for companies tax resident in Spain to amortize the goodwill resulting from equity investments in companies tax resident abroad – Decision calling this help to plan State declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Concept of State aid – Selective nature – None – – Disregard of Article 107, paragraph 1 Identification of a favored companies by measuring category TFEU

T-399/11, [2014] EUECJ T-399/11, ECLI: EU: T: 2014: 938
Bailii

European, Corporation Tax

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538464

Dock and Let Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Oct 2014

CORPORATION TAX – self assessment – enquiry notice given on anniversary date of day on which return filed – whether notice given within 12 months of day when return filed – meaning of word ‘from’ in para 24(2) Sch 18 FA 1998 – held, ‘from’ excluded day when filed – notice therefore validly given – as a result, taxpayer notice under para 1 Sch 36 FA 2008 validly given as Condition A in para 21(4) fulfilled – appeal dismissed and direction given to supply information as specified in Sch 36 notice

[2014] UKFTT 943 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537671

Advanced Scaffolding (Bristol) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Sub-Contractors In The Construction Industry): FTTTx 18 Dec 2018

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – penalties for late filing of CIS returns – s 98A Taxes Management Act 1970 – schedule 55 to Finance Act 2009 – proportionality – special circumstances – reasonable excuse – effect of paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 55 to Finance Act 2009 – appeal allowed in part

[2018] UKFTT 744 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.632423

Etat belge SPF Finances v Les Vergers Du Vieux Tauves: ECJ 22 Dec 2008

ECJ Corporation taxes – Directive 90/435/EEC – Status of parent company Capital holding Holding of shares in usufruct

[2008] EUECJ C-48/07
Bailii
Directive 90/435/EEC
Citing:
OpinionEtat belge SPF Finances v Les Vergers Du Vieux Tauves ECJ 3-Jul-2008
ECJ Opinion – Directive 90/435 Parent company Holder of right of usufruct over shares. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Corporation Tax

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.537072

Kronos International Inc v Finanzamt Leverkusen: ECJ 11 Sep 2014

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU – Free movement of capital – Tax legislation – Corporation tax – Legislation of a Member State designed to eliminate double taxation of distributed profits – Imputation method applied to dividends distributed by companies resident in the same Member State as the company receiving them – Exemption method applied to dividends distributed by companies resident in a different Member State from the company receiving them or in a third State – Difference in treatment of losses of the company receiving the dividends

C-47/12, [2014] EUECJ C-47/12
Bailii
TFEU 49 54 63 65

European, Corporation Tax

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.536562

HM Revenue and Customs v Lloyds TSB Equipment Leasing (No 1) Ltd: CA 30 Jul 2014

LEL had made a claim for writing-down capital allowances at the rate of 25% in respect of expenditure incurred by LEL on the purchase of two merchant vessels, the Arctic Voyager and the Arctic Discoverer, of which it is the owner and lessor. The vessels had been designed and built for the purpose of shipping liquefied natural gas (‘LNG’) from northern Norway to Spain and the USA as part of a project (‘the Snhvit project’) for the exploitation of natural gas fields under the Barents Sea by a consortium of energy companies.

Rimer, Patten, Kitchin LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1062
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535447

Kahn and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue; In re Toshoku Finance plc: HL 20 Feb 2002

A company went into liquidation, being owed substantial sums by another company in the same group, but itself insolvent. A settlement did not include accrued interest, but was claimed to be taxed as if it had, and on an accruals basis. If so, was this an expense properly arising in the insolvency, and payable as a preferred debt?
Held: Debts arising from pre-liquidation were to be proved, but a debt arising in the administration should be paid in full. The issue had been settled by statute. The tax was a proper disbursement in the insolvency, and was payable in full. Whether debts should count as expenses of the liquidation is a matter for the discretion of the court.

Lord Hoffmann Lord Woolf CJ Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Gazette 21-Mar-2002, [2002] UKHL 6, Times 25-Feb-2002, [2002] 1 WLR 671, [2003] 1 AC 1, [2002] 2 All ER 113, [2002] 2 Cr App R 9, [2002] HRLR 23, (2002) 166 JPN 431, (2002) 166 JP 333
House of Lords, Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 8(2), Finance Act 1996 Ch II, Insolvency Act 1986 115, Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986 No 1925) 4.218(1) 4.220(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedIn re Watson, Kipling and Co ChD 1883
An assessment for rates had been made after the liquidation of the company upon property occupied by the company. The court rejected the submission of counsel for the rating authority that: ‘where a liability is incurred during the winding-up, that . .
ApprovedIn re Mesco Properties Ltd ChD 1979
The court considered whether corporation tax had to be paid as an expense of the liquidation in priority to other claims. In that case it had arisen not on profits but on chargeable gains, on sales of the company’s properties after the commencement . .
CitedIn re Mesco Properties Ltd CA 1980
Tax legislation provided that the company was chargeable to corporation tax on a capital gain arising in the winding up.
Held: The appeal failed. It was a tax which the liquidator was bound to discharge by payment, and the payment was a . .
CitedIn re London Metallurgical Co 1985
A costs order made against liquidators arising from proceedings they had taken, will usually have priority over the general expenses of the action. The list of expenses said nothing about the costs of litigation incurred by the liquidator or awarded . .
CitedIn re M C Bacon Ltd ChD 1990
A liquidator claimed that the costs of an unsuccessful attempt to set a floating charge aside should be paid out of the assets subject to the charge in priority to the claims of the charge holder.
Held: The rule was a complete statement of the . .
CitedIn re Atlantic Computer Systems Plc CA 1992
The chargor was a company which arranged with the chargee, a funding bank, that it should purchase equipment and let it on hire purchase to the chargor with permission to sub-lease to end users. The chargor charged to the chargee by way of security . .
CitedLewis v Commissioner of Inland Revenue and others CA 2-Nov-2000
The liquidator in a creditor’s voluntary liquidation sought a direction that he could take his costs of pursuing former directors in actions for wrongful trading and preferences, out of realised funds. It was held that nothing in the rules or Act . .
CitedIn Re Kentish Homes Ltd ChD 31-Mar-1993
The question was whether a post-liquidation liability to community charge on empty flats was an expense of the liquidation.
Held: The company was the chargeable person in respect of the flats for the relevant periods, but the liability was . .
CitedIn re Exhall Coal Mining Co Ltd CA 1864
Section 163 provided ‘any . . distress or execution put in force against the estate or effects of the company after the commencement of the winding up shall be void to all intents.’ After the presentation of a petition, the commencement of a . .
CitedIn re Progress Assurance Co Ex parte Liverpool Exchange Co CA 1870
Where offices had been let to a company which was ordered to be wound up by the Court, a distress was subsequently put in for rent by the lessors, under which the office furniture was seized.
Held: as possession of the offices had not, in the . .
CitedIn re Lundy Granite Co; Ex parte Heavan CA 1871
The landlord of Lundy Island, which was let to a third party, distrained upon goods of the company which had been left upon the tenant’s property. The distraint was for rent which had fallen due more than a year after the winding up order. The . .
CitedIn re Oak Pits Colliery Co CA 1882
The court examined the basis of the rule that the court has a discretion to order a liquidator to pay the full rent of a property he retained: ‘When the liquidator retains property for the purpose of advantageously disposing of it, or when he . .
CitedHardy v Fothergill 1888
Rent falling due after a winding up of the tenant was a future debt for which the landlord could have proved in the tenant’s liquidation. . .
CitedIn re ABC Coupler and Engineering Co Ltd (No 3) ChD 1970
The liquidator when appointed closed down the business which had been conducted on the premises, had the company’s plant and machinery valued and thought about what he should do.
Held: The rent did not become a liquidation expense until some . .
CitedIn re Downer Enterprises Ltd ChD 1974
The company was the assignee of a lease. The rent appears to have been payable in advance on the usual quarter days. The company went into liquidation in November 1971. At some time before April 1972 the liquidator instructed agents to market the . .
CitedRe HH Realisations Ltd ChD 1975
The liquidator of a company ceased to be liable to pay the rent under the company’s lease in full from the time it gave notice to the landlord that it was seeking authority to disclaim the lease, even though it remained in occupation for nearly two . .
CitedIn re Watson, Kipling and Co ChD 1883
An assessment for rates had been made after the liquidation of the company upon property occupied by the company. The court rejected the submission of counsel for the rating authority that: ‘where a liability is incurred during the winding-up, that . .
CitedIn re National Arms and Ammunition Co CA 1885
‘If the company retains the possession of property which would be rateable in the hands of anyone else, it is only reasonable that it should be rateable in the hands of the company . . the true test is whether there has been a beneficial occupation . .
CitedIn re Blazer Fire Lighter Ltd 1895
The liquidator had closed the business and done nothing on the premises except to instal a caretaker to protect them from vandalism. That was sufficient to continue the company in rateable occupation. So the rates were an expense of the liquidation. . .

Cited by:
CitedDigital Equipment Co Ltd and Others v Bower and Others ChD 4-Dec-2003
The liquidators had lost their legal action, and had been ordered to pay the present claimants their costs. They sought payment out of an insolvency services account in competition with the solicitors for the liquidators.
Held: An award of . .
CitedMcGrath and Honey v McMahon and Others, Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd and others CA 9-Jun-2006
The insurance company was to be wound up. It operated internationally but was registered in Australia. The Australian liquidator now sought an order for the transfer of assets held here to Australia.
Held: It was inevitable that cross border . .
CitedUnadkat and Co (Accountants) Ltd v Bhardwaj and Another ChD 11-Oct-2006
Section 651 was broad enough to enable the court to order that the costs of having the dissolution of a company declared void be treated as an expense in the winding-up, notwithstanding the decision of the House of Lords in Re Toshoku Finance UK plc . .
CitedIrish Reel Productions Ltd v Capitol Films Ltd ChD 10-Feb-2010
The petitioner’s winding-up petition had been dismissed on the defendant company being put into administration. The petitioner asked for its costs to be paid as an administration expense payable in priority to the administrator’s expenses.
CitedMcCartney and Unite The Union and Another v Nortel Networks UK Ltd (In Administration) ChD 22-Apr-2010
The administrators gave employees of the company notice of termination of their employment. Then administrators refused consent under para 43(6) to actions against the company in the Northern Ireland Industrial Tribunal for protective awards, unfair . .
CitedIn re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
ExplainedBloom and Others v The Pensions Regulator (Nortel, Re) ChD 10-Dec-2010
Applications for directions by the administrators of twenty companies in two groups, all raising the same common questions as to the effect of the Financial Support Direction regime created by the Pensions Act 2004 upon companies in administration . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.167631

Beacon Estates (Chepstow) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Jul 2014

CORPORATION TAX – Loss relief – Yacht chartering business carried out on a commercial basis – Whether it was also carried out with a view to the realisation of profits of trade in the accounting periods for the years ended 31 March 2009 and 2010 (as required by s 393A (3) and (4) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) and accounting periods for the years ended 31 March 2011 and 2012 (as required by s 44 Corporation Taxes act 2010) – Yes – Appeal allowed

[2014] UKFTT 686 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535138

Easinghall Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Jul 2014

FTTTx Corporation Tax – para 33 Sch 18 FA 98 – application for closure notice – discovery assessment made before enquiry opened – settled by agreement – effect of settlement on scope and possible conclusions of enquiry – Olin v Scorer considered – reasonableness of continuing enquiry

[2014] UKFTT 677 (TC)
Bailii

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.534269

Nisbet Marine Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 19 Dec 2018

Corporation tax – penalties for late filing of Corporation Tax return and late payment of Corporation Tax – Appellant delegated preparation and submission of return to accountant who failed to submit the accounts on time – payment by Appellant of tax to incorrect account (PAYE rather than CT) with HMRC – error by HMRC in not identifying erroneous allocation – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

[2018] UKFTT 753 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.632463

Starflex Contractors Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Jan 2019

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty – Corporation tax – company’s failure to notify chargeability to tax – late returns penalties under Schedule 41 Finance Act 2008 – Schedule 18 Finance Act 1998 – director’s loans – penalties under Sections 455 and 458 Corporation Tax Act 2010 – s 7(3) Schedule 4 – whether reasonable excuse – no – whether special circumstances – no – appeal dismissed

[2019] UKFTT 31 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.632704

Interfish Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 27 Jun 2014

The company sought to set payments it had made to support a local rugby club off against its income for Corporation Tax purposes.
Held: The appeal failed. The requirement was that the expenditure be wholly necessarily and exclusively for the requisite purpose. The mixed purpose here did not suffice.

Lord Dyson MR, Moses, Patten LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 876
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 74
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTxInterfish Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 13-May-2010
FTTTx Corporation tax – deductibility of expenditure – sponsorship payments intended to improve fortunes of sports club – expectation of trade benefits principally as a result of recognition by others involved . .
At FTTTxInterfish Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 4-Apr-2012
FTTTx Corporation tax – deductibility of expenditure – sponsorship payments intended to improve fortunes of sports club – expectation of trade benefits principally as a result of recognition by others involved . .
Appeal fromInterfish Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 16-Jul-2013
UTTC Corporation tax – deductibility of expenditure – sponsorship payments intended to improve fortunes of sports club – expectation of trade benefits principally as a result of recognition by others involved . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533206

Agassi v Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes: HL 17 May 2006

The tax payer played tennis and was paid sums for when he played in England. The sums were paid to his overseas based company.
Held: The revenue’s appeal succeeded. The ‘legislative intendment in relation to sections 555 and 556, and their statutory predecessors in the 1986 Act, was that foreign entertainers and sportsmen who, or whose controlled companies, receive payments in connection with their commercial activities in the United Kingdom should be subject to the section 18(1)(a)(iii) charge to tax and that the territorial principle cannot be implied so as to limit the effect of the clear language of section 555(2). ‘ Otherwise tax could easily be avoided. (Lord Walker dissenting)

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance
Times 18-May-2006, [2006] UKHL 23
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 555 556 557 558, Income Tax (Entertainers and Sportsmen) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/530)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedEx parte Blain; In re Sawers CA 1-Aug-1879
Where legislation regulates the conduct of an individual, it may be so construed as to limit it to conduct by United Kingdom citizens anywhere.
James LJ referred to ‘broad, general, universal principle that English legislation, unless the . .
CitedClark (Inspector of Taxes) v Oceanic Contractors Inc HL 16-Dec-1982
HL Income tax, Schedule E – Non-resident employer – Employees working in U.K. sector of North Sea – Whether employer liable to deduct tax from emoluments – Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973 – Income and . .
At First instanceAgassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 17-Mar-2004
The non-resident tennis player taxpayer appealed a charge to tax in respect of payments made for his sporting activities within the UK, made by overseas companies to other overseas companies owned by the taxpayer.
Held: The Act provided that . .
Appeal FromAgassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) CA 19-Nov-2004
. .
Se AlsoAndre Agassi v S Robinson (H M Inspector of Taxes) (No 2) CA 2-Dec-2005
The taxpayer had been represented in proceedings throughout by tax law experts, Tenon Media, who were not legally admitted, but had a right to conduct litigation under the 1990 Act. The Inspector objected to paying costs as if the representatives . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.241831

Pirelli Cable Holding NV and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners: ChD 22 Jan 2003

The Metallgesellschaft case had established that it was contrary to European law to withhold the right to ACT on dividends paid by a UK holding company to a non-Uk subsidiary. The Revenue claimed that that rule did not apply here because the non-Uk subsidiary operated from a country with a double taxation agreement with the UK.
Held: The Commissioners case was wrong. The receipt of payments in the Netherlands of tax credits did not operate to extinguish the right to payments within the UK. Those receipts were not countervailing advantages sufficient to justify the refusal of the tax credits within the UK.

Park J
Times 29-Jan-2003, [2003] EWHC 32 (Ch), Gazette 20-Mar-2003, [2003] STC 250
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 247
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMetallgesellschaft Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another Hoechst Ag and Another v Same ECJ 8-Mar-2001
The British law which meant that non-resident parent companies of British based businesses were not able to recover interest on payments of advance corporation tax, was discriminatory against other European based companies. Accordingly the law was . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromPirelli Cable Holding NV and others v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 16-Dec-2003
. .
At first InstancePirelli Cable Holding Nv and others v Inland Revenue HL 8-Feb-2006
Under s247 of the 1988 Act, a company paying dividends to a parent company need not withhold ACT. This option was not offered where either subsidiary or parent was not UK resident until the decision in Hoechst which found the restriction contrary to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, European

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.178784

GMGRM North Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Ritchie (Revenue and Customs) and Another: CA 19 Jun 2014

Appellants’ renewed application for permission to appeal against an order refusing permission to apply for judicial review of the decision of the respondents in which they refused to exercise their statutory discretion to permit adjustments to claims made for corporation tax group relief outside the ordinary statutory time limits for such claims provided for in the Finance Act 1998.

[2014] EWCA Civ 844
Bailii
Finance Act 1998
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526736

Commission of The European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium: ECJ 8 May 2008

ECJ (Judgment Of The Court (Seventh Chamber)) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/19/EC – Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

C-392/07, [2008] EUECJ C-392/07
Bailii
Directive 2005/19/EC

European, Corporation Tax, Stamp Duty

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526316

Greene King Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 22 Apr 2014

CORPORATION TAX – loan relationship – assignment of right to interest under the loan to another group company – effect of assignment on recognition of loan in accounts of assignor company – proper application of loan relationship provisions to the assignee company

[2014] UKUT 178 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525883

Commission v Electricite de France: ECJ 5 Jun 2012

ECJ (Grand Chamber) Appeal – State aid – Waiver of a tax claim – Exemption from corporation tax – Increase in share capital – Conduct of a State acting as a prudent private investor in a market economy – Criteria to distinguish between the State as shareholder and the State exercising public power – Definition of ‘reference private investor’ – Principle of equal treatment – Burden of proof

V Skouris, P
C-124/10, [2012] EUECJ C-124/10 – P
Bailii
European
Citing:
See AlsoCommission v Electricite de France ECJ 2-Sep-2010
ECJ (Order) – Intervention – EFTA Surveillance Authority – Article 40, second and third paragraphs of the Statute of the Court’ . .
See AlsoCommission v Electricite de France ECJ 20-Oct-2011
ECJ Opinion – State Aid – Appeal – State aid – Selective tax exemption linked to an increase in share capital during the recapitalisation of an undertaking – Market economy investor principle – State acting as . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523885

Hargreaves Property Holdings Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Nov 2021

CORPORATION TAX – whether interest paid by a UK resident company out of assets situated in the United Kingdom under a debt which, if enforced, would be enforced against assets situated in the United Kingdom had a UK source regardless of where the credit giving rise to the debt was extended and notwithstanding provisions in the loan agreement requiring the interest to be paid outside the United Kingdom, specifying that the governing law was to be that of a jurisdiction outside the United Kingdom and specifying that that non-UK jurisdiction was to be the exclusive jurisdiction for enforcement – yes – whether interest on short-term loans which were repaid within a year out of the proceeds of new loans from the same lenders in circumstances where, on the balance of probabilities, the series of loans were intended to provide long-term funding for the borrower was yearly in nature – yes – whether the Appellant could rely on the – industrial or commercial profits – in the UK/Guernsey double tax treaty to make interest payments to a Guernsey resident company without withholding – not without the making of a claim and the issue of a direction – whether the Appellant could rely on the exemption from withholding tax for interest to which a UK resident company was beneficially entitled when the recipient acquired the interest only just before the interest payment was made and did so for no purpose other than availing itself of the exemption – except to the (de minimis) extent that an interest payment received exceeded the amount paid for the right to receive that interest payment, no-‘ IRC v McGuckian applied

[2021] UKFTT 390 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.669781