Ali v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax, Value Added Tax – Penalties): FTTTx 21 May 2020

CORPORATION TAX, VALUE ADDED TAX – penalties – inaccuracies in tax returns – cash sales largely not recorded – were inaccuracies deliberate on the second and third appellants’ parts? – yes – were they attributable to the first appellant? – yes – did the penalty percentages reflect the quality of disclosure? – yes – was it right to reduce the penalties because of special circumstances affecting family of first appellant? – yes – did the Tribunal have the power to do so? – yes – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 233 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.652259

Smith and Nephew Overseas Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Feb 2017

(Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Losses) CORPORATION TAX – Change in local currency – Whether accounts comply with UK generally accepted accounting practice – Yes – Whether exchange differences are ‘exchange losses’ – Yes – Whether exchange differences ‘fairly represent’ a loss – Yes – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 151 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578544

Centrica Overseas Holdings Limited v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Company With Investment Business): UTTC 18 Aug 2021

s1219 Corporation Tax Act 2009 – company with investment business – expenditure in connection with disposal of assets – whether expenses of management of the company’s investment business – whether expenditure was capital in nature

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 200

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Corporation Tax Act 2009 219

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.671196

GDF Suez Teesside Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 17 Feb 2017

UTTC CORPORATION TAX – avoidance scheme – transfer of contingent, unrecognised, claim against third party to subsidiary in exchange for shares – subsidiary recognising value of asset despite contingency but parent not recognising shares – whether accounting GAAP-compliant – yes – loan relationship rules – whether FA 1996 s 84(1) engaged – yes – recognised value of asset to be brought into account as credit in parent’s corporation tax computation -appeal dismissed
PROCEDURE – opening of enquiry – whether error in identification of accounting period invalidates enquiry – no, if intention clear.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 68 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.577814

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Newfields Developments Ltd: HL 21 Jun 2001

Tax relief for smaller companies was to be reduced where a person controlling the company was associated with other companies. The taxpayer was found to be in control of two companies by virtue of her associations with two trusts with control of two companies. She argued that the section gave a discretion as to the finding of an association. The wording placed no discretion in any person, and the words were not facultative, but conditional. The concluding words of the section were not part of the definition of control, but were a special qualification of the definition to be used in a case where it fell to be decided whether one limb of the definition was satisfied.
HL Corporation tax – Reliefs – Small companies relief- – Amount of relief – Restrictions on amount of relief – Restriction where company has one or more associated companies – Control of companies – Attribution to individual of rights and powers of associates – Individual associated to two sets of trustees who respectively controlled two companies – Whether the two companies associated – Whether attribution of rights and powers of associates a matter of general discretion to be exercised by Revenue only if considered appropriate to facts of the particular case – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, s 13, 416 and 417.
The phrase ‘may be attributed’ does not confer a discretion on HMRC and ‘may’ in effect means ‘shall’ and ‘Even without subsection (6), the definition of control is wide and can apply to people who have no real control over the company’s affairs.’
‘The effect of these cumulative definitions [in sections 416 and 417] is that for the purposes of deciding whether a person ‘shall be taken to have control of a company’ under section 416(2) it may be necessary to attribute to him the rights and powers of persons over whom he may in real life have little or no power of control. Plainly the intention of the legislature was to spread the net very wide.’

Citations:

Times 08-Jun-2001, Gazette 21-Jun-2001, [2001] STC 901, [2001] UKHL 27, [2001] 1 WLR 1111, [2001] UKHL TC – 73 – 532, [2001] BTC 196, [2001] STI 851, [2001] 4 All ER 400, 73 TC 532

Links:

Bailii, House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 416(6), 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex Parte Newfields Developments Ltd CA 15-Feb-2000
The test in the section, provided the conclusive test to establish who had control of a company. The commissioners had no discretion as to how or when to apply the criteria. The first part listed several ways in which the identity and number of . .
At first instanceRegina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte Newfields Developments Limited Admn 17-Feb-1999
The power of the Inland Revenue to attribute to company members powers to control the company not given by their holdings, by associating them with other members is a limited one and is to be used only when the association is real.
Small . .

Cited by:

CitedGascoines Group Limited, Newark Cattle Market Company Limited, Saracens Securities Limited v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 30-Mar-2004
Small companies relief – associated companies
Lightman J said: ‘As is apparent from its terms associated companies are defined in section 13(4) of the 1988 Act as companies of which one company controls or is controlled by another or which are . .
CitedWaterside Escapes Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 13-Oct-2020
Qualifying Property Rental – Stamp Duty Relief
SDLT – higher threshold interest 15% rate – relief for a qualifying property rental business – intention that a non-qualifying individual be permitted to occupy a dwelling on the land (paragraph 5(2), Schedule 4A, FA 2003) – whether a non-qualifying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.88512

Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte Newfields Developments Limited: Admn 17 Feb 1999

The power of the Inland Revenue to attribute to company members powers to control the company not given by their holdings, by associating them with other members is a limited one and is to be used only when the association is real.
Small company relief.

Citations:

Times 09-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 149

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 13, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex Parte Newfields Developments Ltd CA 15-Feb-2000
The test in the section, provided the conclusive test to establish who had control of a company. The commissioners had no discretion as to how or when to apply the criteria. The first part listed several ways in which the identity and number of . .
At first instanceRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Newfields Developments Ltd HL 21-Jun-2001
Tax relief for smaller companies was to be reduced where a person controlling the company was associated with other companies. The taxpayer was found to be in control of two companies by virtue of her associations with two trusts with control of two . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.139413

Gascoines Group Limited, Newark Cattle Market Company Limited, Saracens Securities Limited v HM Inspector of Taxes: ChD 30 Mar 2004

Small companies relief – associated companies
Lightman J said: ‘As is apparent from its terms associated companies are defined in section 13(4) of the 1988 Act as companies of which one company controls or is controlled by another or which are both under the control of the same person or persons. Again as is apparent from its terms section 416 of the 1988 Act identifies not merely those who have control of a company but also the much wider class or group of those who shall be taken to have control. The consequences of actual control and attributed control are the same.’

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Lightman

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 640 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Newfields Developments Ltd HL 21-Jun-2001
Tax relief for smaller companies was to be reduced where a person controlling the company was associated with other companies. The taxpayer was found to be in control of two companies by virtue of her associations with two trusts with control of two . .

Cited by:

CitedWaterside Escapes Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 13-Oct-2020
Qualifying Property Rental – Stamp Duty Relief
SDLT – higher threshold interest 15% rate – relief for a qualifying property rental business – intention that a non-qualifying individual be permitted to occupy a dwelling on the land (paragraph 5(2), Schedule 4A, FA 2003) – whether a non-qualifying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.195039

Armstrong and Haire Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 17 Jul 2020

CORPORATION TAX – amortisation of goodwill – whether the ‘business in question’ was a business carried on by a related party before 1 April 2002 – yes – whether a valid discovery had been made – yes – whether the discovery was stale – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 296 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.653133

Gold 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 dominant purpose of the enquiries and Sch 36 Notices to obtain information to prosecute Mr Budhdeo – whether information can be a statutory record – whether the Sch 36 Notices should be upheld, varied or set aside – whether to confirm the penalties – whether to close the enquiries

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 84 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
See AlsoGold 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 . .

Cited by:

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: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.574047

Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet: ECJ 21 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation on the under-capitalization of subsidiaries – Inclusion in the taxable profits of a company lending interest on loans paid by a non-resident borrowing subsidiary – Exemption from interest paid by a subsidiary Resident borrowing subsidiary – Equitable distribution of the power to tax between Member States – Need to prevent the risk of tax evasion

C-593/14, [2016] EUECJ C-593/14
Bailii
European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572595

Commission v World Duty Free Group SA: ECJ 21 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Appeal – State aid – Article 107 (1) TFEU – Taxation – Company tax – Deduction – Amortization of goodwill arising from at least 5% equity participation by undertakings domiciled in Spain Undertakings domiciled outside that Member State – Concept of ‘State aid’ – Condition relating to selectivity

C-20/15, [2016] EUECJ C-20/15
Bailii
European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572573

Secil – Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento SA v Fazenda Publica: ECJ 24 Nov 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Free movement of capital – Articles 63 to 65 TFEU – EC-Tunisia Association Agreement – Articles 31, 34 and 89 – EC-Lebanon Association Agreement – Articles 31, 33 and 85 – Corporation tax – Dividends received by a company established in the Member State of the beneficiary company – Dividends received from a company established in a non-member State which is party to the association agreement – Difference of treatment – Restriction – Justification – Efficacy of fiscal supervision – Possibility of relying on Article 64 TFEU in relation to the EC-Tunisia and EC-Lebanon association agreements

C-464/14, [2016] EUECJ C-464/14
Bailii
European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571882

Medical Defence Union Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Mutual Trading): FTTTx 19 May 2020

CORPORATION TAX – mutual trading – complex insurance arrangements – whether premium element adjustment falls within mutuality exemption – discovery assessment – sufficiency of information provided to HMRC – s979 Corporation Tax Act 2009

[2020] UKFTT 227 (TC)
Bailii
Corporation Tax Act 2009
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.652269

Royal Bank of Canada v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Oil Royalties Received By Overseas Bank): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020

Corporation tax – oil royalties received by overseas bank and applied to outstanding debt of insolvent oil exploration borrower – whether bank’s rights amounted to ‘immovable property’ under UK/Canada double tax treaty Article 6(2) – whether royalty payments subject to corporation tax as ring fence profits of deemed UK permanent establishment under s 1313 CTA09 – whether certain discovery assessments invalid – appeal dismissed

[2020] UKFTT 267 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.652732

Grazer Learning Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Claim for Research and Development Tax Credit): FTTTx 23 Sep 2021

Claim for research and development tax credit – whether the activity in respect of which the expenditure was incurred qualified as research and development in accordance with the terms of the guidelines published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills – no, because the Appellant had failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the activity involved a project seeking to achieve a technological advance through the resolution of a technological uncertainty – appeal dismissed

[2021] UKFTT 348 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.669741

Jacobs Construction Holdings Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Exemptions and Reliefs): FTTTx 5 Aug 2016

Corporation tax – small companies rate- associated companies- control – intra-group debt outstanding – JV loan financing -discovery – held -discovery assessments valid – companies associated – small companies rate not available.

[2016] UKFTT 555 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568982

Bluecrest Capital Management Cayman Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax/Income Tax – Acquisition By Cayman Islands Limited Partnership): FTTTx 17 Jul 2020

CORPORATION TAX/INCOME TAX – Acquisition by Cayman Islands limited partnership (of which Cayman Islands limited company general partner) of 19% interest in UK limited partnership financed through borrowing – Profit allocation of UK limited partnership made to general partner of Cayman Islands limited partnership – Whether all members of Cayman Islands limited partnership members of UK limited partnership – Whether entitled to a deduction for interest on borrowing – If so, should any deduction be reduced under loan relationship provisions – Whether bank loan and loan notes classified as ‘trading loan relationships’ or ‘non-trading loan relationships’ – Whether discovery amendment valid – Appeal dismissed

[2020] UKFTT 298 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.653135

Discount Kitchens and Bathrooms Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Aug 2018

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty – Application to appeal late against Construction Industry Scheme penalties for late returns – Whether reasonable excuse for late appeal – No. Whether appellant’s appeal against the penalties would have a realistic chance of success – No.

[2018] UKFTT 508 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.632241

The Union Castle Mail Streamship Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Jul 2016

FTTTX CORPORATION TAX – Derivative contracts – Derecognition of financial asset – Whether accounting debit fairly represents a loss from derivative contracts – Whether necessary to meet requirements of paragraph 15 of schedule 26 to Finance Act 2002 if debit within paragraph 25A of that schedule – Whether transfer pricing provisions of schedule 28AA Income and Corporations Taxes Act 1988 applicable – Appeal dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 526 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.567979

Park Property World Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Nov 2010

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX -out of time appeal against assessment – appellant claimed the collapse in the property market and the inability to raise funds meant it could not deal with its tax affairs properly- permission to appeal dismissed

[2010] UKFTT 617 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567569

Morritt Properties (International) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Nov 2010

FTTTx Corporation Tax – Assessment to recover excess group relief – Paragraph 76 Sch 18 FA 1998 – Whether a discovery assessment – No – Whether assessment subject to paragraphs 42-45 Sch 18 FA 1998 – No – Whether agreement under s.54 TMA 1970 – No – Appeal dismissed

[2010] UKFTT 554 (TC), [2011] SFTD 186, [2011] STI 377
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567563

Greenbanks Holidays Limited v HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 6 Apr 2011

Corporation Tax – intangible fixed assets – goodwill – Finance Act 2002 Schedule 29 – taxpayer purchased business and internally generated goodwill from associated company after commencement date – whether internally generated goodwill within definition in para 4(2) – whether goodwill created by taxpayer after commencement date within para 118(1)(a)

[2011] STC 1582, [2011] UKUT B11 (TCC), [2011] UKUT 155 (TCC), [2011] STI 1547, [2011] BTC 1696
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.440818

Camas Plc v HM Inspector of Taxes: ChD 7 Jul 2003

An investment company sought to set against its liability to corporation tax, the various costs of taking over another company. They argued that as an investment company these were not costs of the purchase and could be set against tax.
Held: The phrase ‘expenses of management’ is an ordinary expression not made up of words which carry a recognised or technical meaning. The decision of the Commissioners was one of fact not law, and the court was not bound by them to that extent. The expenses referred to would be not costs of the purchase. Appeal allowed.

The Honourable Mr Justice Patten
[2003] EWHC 1600 (Ch), Times 18-Jul-2003, Gazette 18-Sep-2003, [2003] STC 968
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1998 75(1) 130
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSimpson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v The Grange Trust, Ltd HL 15-Mar-1935
Income Tax – Investment trust company not assessable under Case I of Schedule D – Claim for relief in respect of expenses of management – Income Tax Act, 1918 s 8
Wright L said: ‘An ordinary trading company assessed on the balance of its . .
CitedCapital and National Trust Limited v Golder 1949
The court asked as a question of principle as to whether Parliament ever intended to allow capital expenditure to be deductible as an expense against income.
Held: ‘the expenditure is something which if you were looking at profits and gains . .
CitedSun Life Assurance Society v Davidson HL 4-Jul-1957
The court considered the question of what was meant by the phrase ‘expenses of management’
Held: The phrase (s75) could be seen ‘as apt to cover the expenses which would normally be deductible in respect of its life assurance business if an . .
CitedPrudential Assurance Company Limited v Johnson (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 13-Feb-1998
Life company’s management expenses were allowable against income under Sch D Case 1, but not allowable on income minus expenses basis. . .
CitedSargent v Eayrs 1973
Abortive expenditure on the proposed acquisition of a capital asset is usually capital in nature. . .
CitedHoechst Finance Limited v Gumbrell CA 1983
The issue was whether the appellant company, a member of an international group of trading companies, could recover as expenses of management a commission of 0.25% per annum it had to pay to its parent as the price of obtaining a guarantee for the . .
CitedEdwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromAtkinson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Camas Plc CA 6-May-2004
An investment company made an abortive attempt to take over another. It sought to set off against its Corporation Tax, the costs of the professional advice incurred.
Held: The expenses were deductible. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.184468

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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