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

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

Citations:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Income Tax, Corporation Tax

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80212

Making Productions Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Penalties for Failure To File Company Tax Returns): FTTTx 14 Aug 2019

Penalties for failure to file company tax returns – Schedule 18 Finance Act 1998 – taxpayer relied on agent to file returns – unaware returns had not been filed – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 535 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.641335

PJD AV Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Penalty for Late Filing): FTTTx 20 Aug 2019

Penalty for late filing of company tax returns – late appeal to HMRC – taxpayer relied on agent to deal with tax affairs – whether to give permission for late appeals to be made – Martland and Katib considered – permission refused

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 542 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.641347

Nuclear Electric Plc v Bradley (Inspector of Taxes): CA 13 Nov 1995

Income on funds set aside but not allocated for expenditure not trading income

Citations:

Ind Summary 13-Nov-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromNuclear Electric Plc v Bradley (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 10-Apr-1995
Interest on funds set aside for future costs was trading income-liabilities current. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromNuclear Electric Plc v Bradley (Inspector of Taxes) HL 29-Mar-1996
The income from investments set aside to cover future liabilities was not trading income. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.84384

Howden Joinery Group Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Mar 2014

Corporation tax -management expenses- rental guarantee payments made by holding company –lump sum release payments – rental guarantee payments and provision for future guarantee payments – ‘expenses of managing the investment business’ – duality of purpose – capital or revenue — held – lump sum release payments deductible management expenses – not capital in nature -guarantee payments and provision for future guarantee payments expenditure on assets not on investment business -non deductible – re-current payments – revenue in character.

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 257 (TC), [2014] STI 2015, [2014] SFTD 1186

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.525265

Torbensrichard Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 31 Jan 2012

Schedule 18 Finance Act 1998 – successive failures to file company tax return – whether shortage of funds to pay agent reasonable excuse – no – whether proportionality to be taken into account by Tribunal – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 99 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.451943

Roger Preston Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Accountancy Treatment and Amortisation of Assets Sold): FTTTx 9 Feb 2021

CORPORATION TAX – Accountancy treatment and amortisation of assets sold – Nature of assets – Finance Act 2002 Schedule 29 – Whether assets were intangible assets or financial assets? – Intangible assets – Whether treatment in accounts UK GAAP compliant? – Yes – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 38 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661775

Stirling Jewellers (Dudley) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Profits): FTTTx 22 Jan 2019

CORPORATION TAX – Appellant’s large-scale cash purchases of scrap gold and bullion in Birmingham’s ‘jewellery quarter’
Were there understated profits chargeable to corporation tax in accounting period ending (‘APE’) 31.1.11? – Yes – What were they? – Tribunal has made findings which will permit re-calculation
Having so found, can ‘the presumption of continuity’ be applied to earlier and/or later years so as to support assessments for those earlier and later years? – Yes, but, on the facts, only to APE 10 – Presumption of continuity displaced for years other than APE 10 and APE 11
Assessment for APE 10 was a discovery assessment – Were the conditions in FA 1998 Schedule 18 satisfied in relation to APE 10? – Yes – Was the discovery stale by the time of the assessment? – On the facts, No
Can the understated profits for APE 10 or APE 11 be treated as a loan or advance by the Appellant – No
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION – remarks on its potential utility in this dispute

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 44 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.635678

Caris Properties Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 29 Nov 2019

CORPORATION TAX – late filing of return – tax-geared penalty on unpaid tax – para 18 of Schedule 18 to FA 1998 – penalty for the twin failure in return filing and tax payment – whether reasonable excuse – s 118 of TMA – reliance on accountants – insufficiency of funds – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 709 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.646881

Glais House Care Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Capital Allowances): FTTTx 28 Jan 2019

CORPORATION TAX – capital allowances – expenditure on fixtures on which capital allowances had been claimed by previous owner – claim limited to amount which vendor had been required to bring into account – whether or not this was determined by allocations in contract between the parties – held not – whether or not this was determined by amount actually brought into account by vendor – held not – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 59 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.635665

Lidl Belgium GmbH and Co KG v Finanzamt Heilbronn: ECJ 15 May 2008

ECJ Freedom of establishment Direct taxation Taking account of losses incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a Member State and belonging to a company which has its registered office in another Member State

Judges:

K Lenaerts, P

Citations:

[2008] EUECJ C-414/06, [2008] STC 3229, [2008] 3 CMLR 2, [2008] ECR I-3601, [2008] STI 1359, [2008] CEC 1049, C-414/06

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OpinionLidl Belgium GmbH and Co KG v Finanzamt Heilbronn ECJ 14-Feb-2008
ECJ Opinion – Freedom of establishment – Taxation of companies – Company established in one Member State with a permanent establishment in another Member State – Loss made by the permanent establishment. . .

Cited by:

CitedRevenue 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

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.518023

Lidl Belgium GmbH and Co KG v Finanzamt Heilbronn: ECJ 14 Feb 2008

ECJ Opinion – Freedom of establishment – Taxation of companies – Company established in one Member State with a permanent establishment in another Member State – Loss made by the permanent establishment.

Judges:

Sharpston AG

Citations:

C-414/06, [2008] EUECJ C-414/06 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

OpinionLidl Belgium GmbH and Co KG v Finanzamt Heilbronn ECJ 15-May-2008
ECJ Freedom of establishment Direct taxation Taking account of losses incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a Member State and belonging to a company which has its registered office in another Member . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.265952

Hadee Engineering Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Research and Development): FTTTx 10 Oct 2020

CORPORATION TAX – Research and Development (R and D) – Tax relief – qualifying expenditure – BIS Guidelines – whether the Appellant qualified for relief – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 497 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.661796

Linpac v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Exemptions and Reliefs): FTTTx 31 Jan 2020

Corporation Tax – group relief – claimant company resident in the United Kingdom – subsidiaries resident in other EU member states – whether making a claim for group relief implies the withdrawal of an earlier claim for group relief in respect of losses of companies resident in the United Kingdom – whether claim made in the alternative to the earlier claim – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, Part X, chapter IV – Finance Act 1998, schedule 18

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 60 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.649143

Gripple Ltd v Revenue and Customs: ChD 30 Jun 2010

Short question about the entitlement of a company which is a small or medium-sized enterprise (‘SME’) to enhanced tax relief for expenditure on research and development (‘R and D tax relief’) pursuant to provisions which were first enacted in section 69 of, and schedule 20 to, the Finance Act 2000, and are now contained (together with provisions relating to certain other reliefs of a similar nature) in Part 13 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (sections 1039 to 1142).

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1609 (Ch), [2010] STC 2283, [2010] STI 2120, [2010] BTC 873

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.420025

Revenue and Customs v NCL Investments Ltd and Another: CA 21 May 2020

The issue on this appeal is whether debits to the profit and loss accounts of the taxpayer companies, required by generally accepted accounting practice and resulting from the grant to their employees by the trustees of an employee benefit scheme of options to acquire shares in the holding company of the group, are allowable as deductions in the computation of their profits for the purposes of corporation tax.

Judges:

Lord Justice David Richards

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 663

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650929

Benson v Yard Arm Club Ltd: 1979

The purchase and conversion of a vessel and barge to be used as permanently moored floating restaurant was held not to be the provision of plant to attract allowances.

Citations:

(1979) 53 TC 67

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLingfield Park (1991) Limited v Shove CA 31-Mar-2004
The taxpayers sought capital allowances on the costs of installing an artificial all-weather race track.
Held: The track was not either plant or machinery, and the taxpayer was not eligible for the relief. The only reasonable conclusion was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.196000

Cape Industrial Services Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – On A Purposive Construction of S 11): FTTTx 23 Mar 2020

CORPORATION TAX – on a purposive construction of s 11, s 61, s 67, s 70A to 70E CAA 2001 were the appellants entitled to additional writing down capital allowances – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 162 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.650678

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

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

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3757 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.518500

McNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd: CA 26 Oct 1998

Cross loans were made between an investment company and pension schemes. The overall effect was to create payments which could be set off against Corporation Tax. They were not a pre-ordained series of transactions where the underlying loans were genuine, and the payments were made in respect of a genuine accrual of interest.

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-1998, Gazette 18-Nov-1998, [2001] 2 WLR 377, [1998] EWCA Civ 1608

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 338

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedW T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
At ChDMcNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd ChD 19-Aug-1997
Loans made between associated companies for the sole purpose of creating a charge to tax were ineffective as avoidance scheme. . .

Cited by:

CitedBarclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 22-Jul-2002
The taxpayer sought to claim for capital allowances of andpound;91 million for gas pipelines. The claimant had provided the equipment through a leasing scheme.
Held: The leases were unusual, but did not appear to be merely part of a tax . .
At CAMacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd HL 15-Feb-2001
The fact that a payment of interest was made only to create a tax advantage did not prevent its being properly claimed. Interest was paid for the purposes of setting it against tax, when the debt was discharged. A company with substantial losses had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.83580

Carr v Sayer: 1992

The taxpayer claimed capital allowances for expenditure on purpose built permanent quarantine kennels.
Held: It was not expenditure on plant. To decide whether a structure is plant so as to qualify for capiltal allowances, the question is whether the item can reasonably be called apparatus with which the trade is carried on, as opposed to the premises in or on which it is carried on.

Judges:

Sir Donald Nicholls VC

Citations:

(1992) 65 TC 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLingfield Park (1991) Limited v Shove CA 31-Mar-2004
The taxpayers sought capital allowances on the costs of installing an artificial all-weather race track.
Held: The track was not either plant or machinery, and the taxpayer was not eligible for the relief. The only reasonable conclusion was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195998

Barrett (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd: CA 12 Jun 2003

The question arising was whether paragraph 55(2) of Schedule 8 to the Finance Act 1995, a reinsurance treaty entered into on 25 November 1994 by the taxpayer reinsurer with a non-resident cedant is, by virtue of the fact that policies of life assurance ceded by that treaty were issued before 1 November 1994, within the following opening words of such paragraph ‘Where the policy or contract for any life assurance business was made before 1 November 1994 . . ‘
Held: Contracts for re-insurance were to be treated as coming within the definition of contracts for insurance, and so were caught by the transitional provisions. This construction leads to a matching between the business referred to in the opening clause of paragraph 55(2) and that referred to in the operative part of that provision. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery, Lady Justice Arden And Mr Justice Nelson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 789, Times 18-Jun-2003, [2003] BTC 368, [2003] STC 1129, 75 TC 261, [2003] STI 1071

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1995 Sch8 Par55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBarrett (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd ChD 5-Jul-2002
Paragraph 57(2) of Schedule 8 to the Finance Act 1995, which provides that section 442A of the Taxes Act 1998 ‘does not apply in relation to the reinsurance of a policy or contract where the policy or contract was made, and the reinsurance . .

Cited by:

Appealed toBarrett (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd ChD 5-Jul-2002
Paragraph 57(2) of Schedule 8 to the Finance Act 1995, which provides that section 442A of the Taxes Act 1998 ‘does not apply in relation to the reinsurance of a policy or contract where the policy or contract was made, and the reinsurance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Corporation Tax

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.183641

Investec Asset Finance Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs: CA 30 Apr 2020

‘a number of important substantive and procedural issues arising out of a series of closure notices issued by HMRC to Investec Asset Finance plc (‘IAF’) and Investec Bank plc (‘IBP’) in respect of their liability for corporation tax in the accounting periods between 1 April 2006 and 31 March 2010. The substantive issues concern the relationship between the statutory provisions concerning the taxation of profits made by partnerships and the taxation of a company’s business where that business includes owning interests in partnerships. Generally speaking, where a partnership is carried on by persons at least one of which is a company, it is not treated as a separate entity for tax purposes. According to sections 111 and 114 of the Income and Corporation Tax Act 1988 (‘ICTA’), the profits of the partnership are first calculated for the purposes of corporation tax as if the partnership were a company but then those profits are taxed in the hands of the corporate partners according to their proportionate interests in the partnership. Where those partners are companies rather than individuals, those companies are also liable for corporation tax on their own business profits under section 42 of the Finance Act 1998. ‘

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 579

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Tax Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650530

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

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

Citations:

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

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.89708

Revenue and Customs v Bank of Ireland Britain Holdings Ltd: CA 8 Feb 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 58, [2008] STC 398

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At SCITBank of Ireland Britain Holdings Ltd v Revenue Customs SCIT 6-Jun-2006
SCIT Corporation tax – tripartite repo transaction with two non-resident parties – whether resident party deemed to be in receipt of interest on deemed loan – whether deemed annual payment representing deemed . .
Appeal fromRevenue and Customs v Bank of Ireland Britain Holdings Ltd ChD 30-Apr-2007
The court asked whether a tax avoidance scheme succeeded in its object of generating a loss for tax purposes in a situation where the taxpayer suffered no corresponding commercial loss. . .

Cited by:

CitedHarding v Revenue and Customs CA 23-Oct-2008
Lapsed Currency conversion option lost status
The taxpayer appealed his assessment to Capital Gains Tax on his redemption of loan notes arising following the sale of his computer company. He said that they were qualifying corporate bonds. The question was whether a security in which a currency . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.264270

The Union Castle Mail Steamship Company Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs and Others: CA 22 Apr 2020

The court was asked whether, as counsel for the appellant taxpayers graphically submitted, Parliament has ‘surrendered to accountants’ the determination of the taxable profits and allowable losses resulting from derivative contracts.

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 547

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650177

Spring Capital Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Exemptions and Reliefs – Carry Forward of Losses): FTTTx 18 Nov 2019

CORPORATION TAX – carry forward of losses under section 343 ICTA 1988 – company reconstruction – quantum of losses available to be carried forward – relevant assets and liabilities test in section 343(4) and 344(5) and (6)ICTA 1988 – identifying the relevant assets and liabilities – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 699 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.646910

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

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

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 790

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.516970

Teksolutions-Inc Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Whether Claimed Expenditure Evidenced): FTTTx 7 Nov 2019

CORPORATION TAX – whether claimed expenditure evidenced – No – trading losses reduced to nil – no qualifying expenditure for the purposes of R and D credits – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 683 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.646914

Fidex Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Apr 2013

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

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 212 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472799

MGF (Trench Construction Systems) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Nov 2012

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – capital allowances – plant and machinery – excavation support equipment hired out – design service – whether first year allowances available under Capital Allowances Act 2001 – yes – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 739 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472746

Pennine Drilling and Grouting Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Mar 2013

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – adjustments to Appellant’s returns to take account of incorrect treatment of writing off of goodwill – whether such treatment discovered during investigation into Appellant’s tax affairs – yes -appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 200 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Corporation Tax

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472419

The Partners of The Vaccine Research Ltd Partnership and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Dec 2012

FTTTx Capital allowances – research and development allowances for expenditure on vaccine research and development – claim by partners of limited partnership – whether arrangements a sham – whether partnership trading – whether partners entitled to loan interest

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 73 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Corporation Tax

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472278

Prudential 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.

Citations:

Times 24-Feb-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 244

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 75 76

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCamas 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143722

Girobank Plc v Clarke (HM Inspector of Taxes): CA 19 Dec 1997

The use of a building for data processing does not qualify it as the subjection of goods or materials to any process and therefore no capital allowance was claimable.

Citations:

Times 06-Jan-1998, Gazette 11-Feb-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 3061

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromGirobank Plc v Clarke (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 21-Mar-1996
The part use of an industrial building as an office defeats a capital allowance claim. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toGirobank Plc v Clarke (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 21-Mar-1996
The part use of an industrial building as an office defeats a capital allowance claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.143460

Pirelli Cable Holding NV and others v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue: CA 16 Dec 2003

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws Sir Martin Nourse Lord Justice Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1849, [2004] STI 49, [2004] Eu LR 459, [2004] BTC 50, [2004] STC 130

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromPirelli 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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromPirelli 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: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.188913

The Bampton Property Group Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v King: CA 21 Dec 2012

Public law challenge to the decision-making process of the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’). The decision in question was to refuse the appellants, all members of a property investment group of companies, headed by a publicly-listed company called Daejan Holdings plc (‘Daejan’), an extension of time to make claims to offset losses against profits and thereby reduce their tax bill.

Judges:

Rix, Arden, Kitchin LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1744, [2014] STC 56, [2013] STI 257, [2013] BTC 24

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467625

Explainaway Ltd, Quartfed Ltd Parastream Limited v HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 19 Oct 2012

CORPORATION TAX – scheme to avoid tax on chargeable gains – whether derivative transactions gave rise to chargeable gains and losses – whether loss arising on disposal of shares in group company was an allowable loss – ICTA, s 128, and TCGA, ss 2 and 143 – application of Ramsay principle

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 362 (TCC), FTC/72 and 79/2011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.466694

Greene King Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2012

FTTTx Corporation Tax – accounting treatment of intra-group transactions – loan relationship provisions – FA 1996, Part IV, Ch II- whether accounting treatment adopted GAAP compliant – no – FRS 5, 18 -interest strip – whether principal should be partially de-recognised in creditor’s accounts – yes – whether receipts of stripped interest within FA 1996 s 84(1)(b) – no – whether FA 1996 s 84(2)(a) applies – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 385 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466264

Iliffe News and Media Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Nov 2012

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – purported assignments of unregistered trade marks in gross (newspaper mastheads) by subsidiaries to their parent company – whether valid under common law – held no – alternatively on the basis that they were valid whether certain of them were unlawful distributions pursuant to sections 263 and 270(2) Companies Act 1985 – held no – whether purported licences-back of the trade marks by the parent company to the subsidiaries were for a licence fee in excess of market value – found yes – and whether the licence fees were unlawful distributions of capital by the subsidiaries – Progress Property Co Ltd v Moore [2011] 1 WLR 1 considered – held no – whether the licence fees were capital receipts or income receipts in the hands of the parent company – held capital – whether Sch. 29 FA 2002 applies to the licences – held no, because there was no post-commencement expenditure on their creation – whether the purported assignments and licences-back were tax avoidance arrangements within para. 111, Sch. 29 FA 2002 – held yes – whether the one of the main purposes for which the subsidiaries and parent entered into loan relationships to facilitate the transactions was a tax avoidance purpose within para. 13, Sch. 9 FA 1996 – held yes – whether any debit under Ch. II, Pt. IV, FA 1996 was attributable to the tax avoidance purpose – held no – appeals allowed in part

Judges:

John Walters QC HHJ

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 696 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 263 270(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466252

Interfish 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 with the club of taxpayer’s benefaction – dual purpose of benefitting sports club and taxpayer’s trade – payments not deductible – direct promotion of taxpayer’s business also obtained – value of that promotion not deductible – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, s 74

Judges:

Nicholas Paines QC

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 599 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 74

Citing:

See AlsoInterfish 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 . .

Cited by:

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 . .
At FTTTxInterfish 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466018

Bricom Holdings Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: CA 25 Jul 1997

Appeal by the taxpayer from a decision of the Special Commissioners dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal against assessments to tax made in accordance with Section 747(4)(a) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2193, [1997] STC 1179, [1997] BTC 471

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142590

H M Inspector of Taxes (Atwood) v Anduff Car Wash Limited: CA 17 Jul 1997

Capital allowances.
The taxpayer operated automatic car wash sites. It claimed capital allowances for the entirety of a wash hall, housed within a building incorporating washing machinery and control equipment, and surrounded by tarmac areas used for circulation, queuing and parking. It said that the entire site, or entire wash hall, was a single item of qualifying plant. The Inspector accepted that some of the car wash facilities were plant, but not each entire site. The Special Commissioners allowed the taxpayer’s appeal. The Crown succeeded on appeal to the judge.
Held: The appeal was denied, applying the ‘premises’ test. The only reasonable conclusion was that neither an entire site nor an entire wash hall (i.e. the building housing the car wash machinery) could be regarded as a unit of plant: although they satisfied the business use test, they failed the premises test, as both the entire site and the wash hall functioned as premises, not as plant. ‘It is hard to see how land, as distinct from a structure could ever be apparatus functioning as plant.’

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ, Robert Walker and Beldam LJJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2128, (1997) 69 TC 575

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 22 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromAttwood (Inspector of Taxes) v Anduff Car Wash Ltd ChD 11-Dec-1995
No capital allowances for car wash structures. They were part of premises, not plant. . .

Cited by:

CitedLingfield Park (1991) Limited v Shove CA 31-Mar-2004
The taxpayers sought capital allowances on the costs of installing an artificial all-weather race track.
Held: The track was not either plant or machinery, and the taxpayer was not eligible for the relief. The only reasonable conclusion was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142525

Northern Gas Network v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Land Remediation Relief): FTTTx 2 Mar 2020

CORPORATION TAX – land remediation relief – did the replacement or improvement of iron gas mains satisfy the conditions in paragraph 12 of Schedule 22 Finance Act 2001 to qualify for relief for remediation of contaminated land – no – in certain cases, the Appellant had not acquired rights in or over land in the United Kingdom whilst, in other cases, although the Appellant had acquired such rights and the land was in a contaminated state at the time of acquisition by virtue of the gas in the pipes at that time, the expenditure incurred by the Appellant was not ‘on’ or ‘in relation to’ the land and was therefore not ‘qualifying land remediation expenditure’ and, in any event, the land was in a contaminated state by virtue of something done or omitted to be done by a person with a ‘relevant connection’ to the Appellant

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 121 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.649210

P. Ferrero (Taxation) C-338/08: ECJ 24 Jun 2010

Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 90/435/EEC – Concept of withholding tax – Application of a levy of 5% at the time of distribution of dividends and of the ‘refund of the adjustment surtax’ by an Italian subsidiary to its parent company established in the Netherlands, pursuant to a bilateral convention.

Citations:

C-338/08, [2010] EUECJ C-338/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.420195

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

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

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.141693

Jowett (Inspector of Taxes) v O’Neill and Brennan Construction Ltd: ChD 25 Mar 1998

Wynchgate Construction Ltd, an associated company of the taxpayer company, (‘WCL’), commenced a trade in 1994 of providing the services of British construction workers to a contractor operating in Germany. The trade only lasted for about 5 months. WCL discontinued it in May 1994 but had not received payment, or ‘full payment’ for its services. In October 1994 WCL received a payment of just over pounds 100,000 and put it on deposit at the bank. It also had a current account which contained a small credit balance of pounds 300 or so. In the relevant period, 1995, WCL: (i) carried on no trade; (ii) closed its current account and transferred the small credit balance to the deposit account; (iii) paid a corporation tax liability; and (iv) earned interest on its deposit account.
Held: An associated company ceasing to trade and whose only activity was in receiving interest on that deposit was not trading for the purposes of calculating lower rates of tax.
CS Park J: ‘ [The Special Commissioner] has taken it for granted, rightly in my judgment, that if WCL was not carrying on an investment business it was not carrying on any other kind of business. The kinds of activities which our tax law recognises as species of business are trades, professions, vocations and investment. I am not aware of any other, and if another exists I am sure that it does not apply to the facts of WCL in 1995.
Mr Furness accepts that WCL was not carrying on an investment business merely by having its money on deposit at the bank. When I asked him what sort of business WCL was carrying on he said: ‘It was in the business of gainfully employing its assets while keeping itself in existence pending any trading opportunity which might arise.’ That is not a kind of business. It is just a description of the company’s profile in the relevant period, stated in the grandest terms that can be managed for facts which amounted to scarcely anything, and then the epithet ‘business’ is attached.
It seems to me that the question which [the Special Commissioner] asked himself, though not couched in the precise words of the statute, was nevertheless the real question to which the statute gave rise on the particular facts of this case. He tacitly assumed that if WCL was not carrying on an investment business, it was not carrying on any business at all. In my judgment he was entirely right, and there is no misstatement of law to be found in his decision.’

Judges:

Park J

Citations:

Times 25-Mar-1998, [1998] STC 482

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHM Revenue and Customs v Salaried Persons Postal Loans Ltd ChD 7-Apr-2006
The company had ceased trading, but rental income was still generated from its former premises. The Revenue sought to include the receipt in calculations of whether the company was entitled to a small company corporation tax rate. The Revenue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.82632

Esso Exploration and Production UK Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 4 Mar 2020

CORPORATION TAX – Cross Border Group Relief for losses – Schedule 18 FA 1988 – Marks and Spencer exception – Holmen and Memira – UK/USA Double Taxation Conventions – OECD commentaries – sister EU companies – Felixstowe and Philips – US ultimate parent – FCE – Boake Allen – no possibilities test – impact of domestic law – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 139 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.649204

Exotic Spice (Sportborough) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax and Value Added Tax – Assessments): FTTTx 30 Oct 2019

CORPORATION TAX AND VALUE ADDED TAX – assessments – time limits – best judgment – alleged suppression of takings – penalty assessments – decision in principle – further consideration to be given to quantum of assessments if not agreed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 661 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax, VAT

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.644026

Aspect Capital Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 29 Jun 2012

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – deemed charge under s 419(1) ICTA 1988 on loans to participators – whether money loaned under employee participation scheme – yes – whether a debt arose immediately on transfer of shares under scheme – yes – appeal dismissed

Judges:

Barbara Mosedale

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 430 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462775

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

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462802

Tillzane Scaffolding Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Sep 2019

CORPORATION TAX – penalties for late filing of company tax returns for three accounting periods – insufficient evidence that HMRC had given proper notice to file the returns under paragraph 3 of Schedule 18 Finance Act 1998 – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 575 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.644014

Societe Generale (Judgment): ECJ 30 Apr 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 63 TFEU – Free movement of capital – Tax on financial transactions – Transactions relating to derivative financial instruments whose underlying security is a security issued by a company resident in the Member State of taxation – Tax due regardless of the place of conclusion of the transaction – Administrative and reporting obligations

Citations:

C-565/18, [2020] EUECJ C-565/18, , [2019] EUECJ C-565/18_O

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.660152

Urenco Chemplants Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Capital Allowances): FTTTx 7 Aug 2019

Corporation tax – capital allowances – ss11, 21, 23 Capital Allowances Act 2001 – expenditure on construction of a tails management facility at a nuclear site – identification of the assets – whether the assets function as plant – whether any of the expenditure is on the provision of a building within s21 CAA 2001 – if so, whether any of the expenditure is saved by List C s23 CAA 2001 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 522 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.641359

Oriel Developments Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Claim for Chargeable Gains Rollover Relief): FTTTx 2 Aug 2019

CORPORATION TAX – Claim for chargeable gains rollover relief (following a compulsory purchase) in respect of expenditure on constructing buildings on land already held – conclusion that such expenditure did not amount to ‘acquiring other land’ for the purpose of the relief and therefore that the claim was invalid but that the discovery assessment issued by the Respondents in this respect was based on a discovery which was ‘stale’ and was therefore invalid – appeal upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 503 (TC), [2019] SFTD 1288

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.641346

Inmarsat Global Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Corporation Tax – Capital Allowances): FTTTx 30 Aug 2019

Corporation tax – capital allowances – transfer of trade using leased satellites whose launch costs had been separately incurred by transferor – whether successor entitled to writing down allowances on an apportioned part of the market value at the time of transfer based on predecessor’s launch costs of the satellites – sections 78(1) and 61(4) CAA 1990 – held no

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 558 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.641328

Revenue and Customs v Smith and Nephew Overseas Ltd and Others: CA 3 Mar 2020

The dispute concerns each of the Respondents’ entitlement to set off foreign exchange losses against their liability to corporation tax. The exchanges loss arose as a result of the Respondent companies changing their functional accounting currencies from sterling to US dollars on 23 December 2008 at a time when the only asset on their balance sheets was a very substantial inter-company debt owed to them by their parent company. The debts were denominated in sterling but then had to be converted into dollars when the companies’ accounts were restated in dollars. The next day, the debts were disposed of as part of a group restructuring. The exchange losses arose from the Respondents’ ‘loan relationships’ as that term is used in Chapter 2 of Part IV of the Finance Act 1996 (‘Chapter 2’).

Judges:

Lady Justice Rose

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 299

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.648562

Advantage Rock Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 25 Jun 2019

Corporation Tax – Late Filing – Flat-Rate Penalties – Schedule 18 Finance Act 1998 – Were the penalties correctly imposed? – Yes – Was there a reasonable excuse? – No – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 431 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.641234

Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 19 Jun 2007

Correct classification, for the purposes of capital allowances, of expenditure on a building provided for the business of the appellant.

Judges:

Carnwath LJ, Hallett LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 545, [2007] Bus LR 1686, [2007] BTC 607, [2007] STC 1442, [2007] STI 1773, [2007] NPC 73, (2007) 151 SJLB 861

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At SCITMaco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SCIT 25-Oct-2005
SCIT CAPITAL ALLOWANCES – industrial buildings allowances – building used to house goods manufactured by the Appellant’s Austrian parent company for sale to wholesalers in the UK to be used in manufacture – . .
Appeal fromRevenue and Customs v Maco Door and Window Hardware (Uk) Ltd ChD 19-Jul-2006
The Revenue sought to disallow for industrial buildings allowance sums expended on warehouse premises which were to be used to store window products imported for use in other manufacturing processes.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal succeeded. ‘The . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromMaco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked whether a warehouse used to store purchases made by the company from its parent company in Austria, was an ‘industrial building or structure’. It was agreed that the facility was used for the storage of materials for use in later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.253493

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

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

Citations:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.80862

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

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

Citations:

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

Statutes:

Finance Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.83608

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

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

Citations:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81606

B Humphreys Building Construction Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 27 Jul 2019

CORPORATION TAX – Late Filing Flat-Rate Penalties – Schedule 18 Finance Act 1998 – Were the penalties correctly imposed? – Yes – Was there a reasonable excuse? – No – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 486 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641257

Farid and Farid Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 28 Feb 2019

Corporation tax – penalties for late filing of Corporation Tax returns – returns filed on time but without supplemental information – returned by HMRC – agent error – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 142 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.635695

Daarasp Llp and Another v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Capital Allowances): FTTTx 13 Sep 2018

Capital allowances – LLPs – expenditure on software licences – ambit of closure notices – trading – incurring of expenditure – LLP as small enterprise – long life assets – anti-avoidance rules – main object of LLP

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 548 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632294

DAC Beachcroft Llp v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 6 Sep 2018

Corporation tax – information notice seeking documents concerning property transactions to assist in establishing location of central management and control of company – conveyancing file of solicitors acting on purchase – legal professional privilege – Information Notice: Resolution of Disputes as to Privileged Communications Regulations 2009

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 502 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.632295

Gallaher Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : European Law): FTTTx 25 Mar 2019

CORPORATION TAX – whether the UK legislation in relation to intra-group disposals is compliant with EU law – consideration of the applicable freedoms, whether or not the provisions in question restrict a freedom, whether or not the provisions can be justified by the lack of objective comparability of situation or by reference to the balanced allocation of taxing powers between Member States, the proportionality of the restriction, the doctrines of conforming interpretation and disapplication – consideration of movements of capital – in relation to the disposal of shares to the Dutch resident parent company, disapplication of the restriction limiting no gain/no loss disposals to transferees within the UK tax net – in relation to the disposal of intangible assets to the Swiss resident sister company, UK legislation compatible with EU law

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 207 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.635752

London Luton Hotel Bpra Property Fund Llp v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Capital Allowances): FTTTx 28 Mar 2019

CAPITAL ALLOWANCES – Conversion of flight training centre into 124-room hotel – Whether entitled to Business Premises Renovation Allowances on whole or only elements of sum paid to developer – Appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 212 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.635762

Seascope Insurance Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Dec 2011

Corporation Tax – marginal small companies’ relief – whether claims made on correct basis – whether possibility of other companies being associated – extent of information available from overseas shareholders – held, on totality of evidence reasonably available that possibility of existence of other associated companies could be discounted – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 828 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.450949

Turners (Soham) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Exemptions and Reliefs): FTTTx 26 Feb 2019

CORPORATION TAX – computation of profits – deductions for replacement of tools – implements, utensils, articles – s 68 CTA 2009 and s 74(1)(d) TA88; mistake claim -para 51A Sch 18 FA 98 whether generally prevailing practice.

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 131 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.635733

Revenue and Customs v Bank of Ireland Britain Holdings Ltd: ChD 30 Apr 2007

The court asked whether a tax avoidance scheme succeeded in its object of generating a loss for tax purposes in a situation where the taxpayer suffered no corresponding commercial loss.

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 941 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBank of Ireland Britain Holdings Ltd v Revenue Customs SCIT 6-Jun-2006
SCIT Corporation tax – tripartite repo transaction with two non-resident parties – whether resident party deemed to be in receipt of interest on deemed loan – whether deemed annual payment representing deemed . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRevenue and Customs v Bank of Ireland Britain Holdings Ltd CA 8-Feb-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.251569

Bamberg v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jul 2010

TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES – company with distributable reserves acquiring company with negative reserves having loan stock acquired by the shareholder of the parent company – loans by the parent company to the subsidiary which repaid the loan stock – whether caught by Circumstance D – yes; hive-down of trade of parent to subsidiary – whether repayment of loan stock out of subsequent profits of the subsidiary caught – no; whether the reference in Circumstance C(2) to assets representing a return of capital which under the law of the country of incorporation is available for distribution limited to foreign-incorporated companies – no

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 333 (TC), [2010] SFTD 1231, [2010] STI 2644

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 16 October 2022; Ref: scu.422296

B and E Security Systems Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 26 Mar 2010

Capital allowances – Plant and machinery – security company -acquisition and installation of specialist security equipment- construction of control room – room contained within existing building – detailed specific requirements – reinforcing of walls and ceiling- interlock- work to entrance door and internal flooring-whether construction works were alterations incidental to installation Capital Allowances Act 2001 ss 21, 25 – Appellant successful – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 146 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 16 October 2022; Ref: scu.422162

Lion Co v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Dec 2009

Corporation tax – deductibility of loss on written down expenditure on residential property transferred to director as bonus – treated as current asset in accounts – whether on capital or revenue account – s 74(1)(e) ICTA 1988

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 357 (TC), [2010] SFTD 454, [2010] STI 683

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.409158

GVC Services (Bulgaria): ECJ 2 Apr 2020

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common tax regime applicable to parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States – Directive 2011/96 / EU – Article 2, sub a), i) and iii), and Annex I, part A, sub ab), and Part B, last indent – Concepts of ‘companies incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom’ and of ‘corporation tax in the United Kingdom’ – Companies registered in Gibraltar and which are subject to corporation tax there

Citations:

C-458/18, [2020] EUECJ C-458/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:266, [2019] EUECJ C-458/18_O

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.660124