Versteegh Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Nov 2013

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – tax avoidance scheme designed to achieve loan relationship debit in borrowing company in a group without a corresponding tax charge in any other group company – loan structured to provide a return in the form of preference shares issued by the borrower, not to the lender but to another group company (the share recipient)
Lead case issues: (1) was the lender taxable under FA 1996 (loan relationships)- application of FRS 5 to the accounts of the lender – was the lender taxable under s 786 ICTA – effect of s 80(5) FA 1996; (2) was the share recipient taxable on its receipt of the preference shares under Case VI of Schedule D; and (3) on the limited basis of the question put to the tribunal, did the unallowable purposes rule in FA 1996, Sch 9, para 13 result in the borrower’s debit in respect of the issue of the preference shares under the loan agreement not being taken into account under FA 1996

[2013] UKFTT 642 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518634

A Oy: ECJ 21 Feb 2013

ECJ Freedom of establishment – Article 49 TFEU – Tax legislation – Merger of a parent company established in one Member State with a subsidiary established in another Member State – Deductibility by the parent company of the subsidiary’s losses arising from its activity – Exclusion for non-resident subsidiaries

L Bay Larsen P
[2013] EUECJ C-123/11, C-123/11
Bailii
Citing:
OpinionA Oy ECJ 19-Jul-2012
ECJ Opinion – Tax law – Freedom of establishment – Directive 2009/133/EEC – National income tax law – Merger of two companies resident in different Member States – Deductibility of losses of the transferring . .

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.

European, Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518019

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

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

Malcolm Gammie QC TJ
[2009] UKFTT 00005 (TC), [2009] SFTD 1, [2009] UKFTT 64 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At FTTTXRevenue 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 . .
SeeAlsoMarks and Spencer Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 24-Aug-2009
. .
At FTTTxMarks 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 . .
At FTTTxHM 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: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518020

Oy Aa (Freedom of Establishment): ECJ 18 Jul 2007

ECJ Freedom of establishment – Corporate tax legislation – Ability of a company to deduct sums paid by way of intra-group transfer – Obligation on the transferee company also to have its establishment in the Member State concerned

V. Skouris, P
[2007] EUECJ C-231/05, [2007] ECR I-6373, C-231/05
Bailii
European
Citing:
OpinionOy Aa (Freedom of Establishment) ECJ 18-Jul-2007
ECJ Opinion – Freedom of establishment Corporate tax legislation Ability of a company to deduct sums paid by way of intra-group transfer Obligation on the transferee company also to have its establishment in the . .

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: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518022

DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 8 May 2007

Gilt repo – purchase and resale of gilts – interest paid to interim holder not required to be paid to original holder but recognised in repurchase price – application of paragraph 15 Schedule 9 FA 96 – related transaction – effect of section 737A to 737C and 730A TA 88 – effect of section 97 FA 96 – approach to section84 FA 96 – section 86 FA 96 determining which authorised accounting method to use.

Charles Hellier
[2007] UKSPC SPC00611, [2007] STI 1649, [2007] STC (SCD) 592
Bailii
Finance Act 1996 84(1), Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 730A 737A
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromDCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 17-Oct-2008
The court considered the taxation of ‘repo’ transactions. The revenue had charged to tax, an element of interest paid on a block og gilts purchased by the taxpayer company under a resale agreement at a price which allowed for the interest payments . .
At Special CommissionersRevenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd CA 10-Nov-2009
The company had entered into an agreement to purchase gilts, and at the same time to resell them at a future date for a fixed sum. In effect they provided a loan against the gilts. It sought to offset the profit against its trading losses.
At Special CommissionersRevenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd SC 15-Dec-2010
The taxpayer had entered into a ‘repo’ loan to its bank, agreeing to purchase a block of gilt edged securities, and to resell them at a later date at a fixed figure. The profit and figures included an allowance for the interest payments to be made. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.253403

Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Revenue and Customs: CA 28 Aug 2020

[2020] EWCA Civ 1128
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from UTTCIrish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs UTTC 9-Oct-2019
CORPORATION TAX – UK branches of Irish banks – interest expense – whether deductible – attribution of notional capital – ICTA section 11AA(3)(b) – construction and application of UK – Ireland DTC. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.653360

Glapwell Football Club Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Sep 2013

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – Group relief – whether the trade of the loss-making company was being carried on in the relevant accounting periods with a view to the realisation of gain in the trade, or so as to afford a reasonable expectation of gain in the trade – sections 393A(3)and 393A(4) ICTA 1988 – loss-making company carrying on the trade of running a football club or fielding a football team – found on the facts that the trade was not being carried on at the relevant times so as to afford a reasonable expectation of gain in the trade – appeal dismissed

[2013] UKFTT 516 (TC)
Bailii

Corporation Tax

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516875

Nijjar Dairies Ltd v The Commissioners Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Aug 2013

FTTTx Corporation tax – preliminary issue – was discovery determination under paragraph 41(2) Schedule 18 FA 1998 made within time limit – no – appeal against information notice under Schedule 36 FA 2008 – were taxpayer’s records statutory records – yes – appeal struck out in part – were other information and documents reasonably required for purposes of checking taxpayer’s tax position – yes – appeal dismissed and notice confirmed

[2013] UKFTT 434 (TC)
Bailii

Corporation Tax

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515218

Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 19 Jun 2015

CORPORATION TAX – double taxation relief – dividend paid to related company – share subscription by overseas company in UK subsidiary – shares almost immediately cancelled with reduction of capital – subscription money credited to reserves – reserves then paid by way of dividend to overseas company – no UK tax borne by reserves – onward dividend paid to UK holding company – liability for Case V tax – whether ICTA s 801(4B) to be applied to ‘underlying tax’ – no – appeal dismissed

[2015] UKUT 312 (TCC), [2015] STC 2393, [2015] BTC 520, [2015] STI 2027
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.553180

Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 29 May 2013

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – double taxation relief – dividends paid between related companies: relief for UK and underlying taxes – ‘rate-boosting’ – Australian subsidiary of claimant company held all shares in UK unlimited company – Australian subsidiary subscribed for further shares in unlimited company – cancellation of those further shares and reduction of capital by unlimited company – subscription monies relating to cancelled shares credited to reserves – reserves represented by subscription monies released by way of ‘interim dividend’ to Australian Company – no UK tax borne on reserves out of which ‘interim dividend’ was paid – whether section 801(4B) of ICTA 1988 applied to increase underlying tax available for credit in hands of claimant company – no – appeal dismissed

[2013] UKFTT 322 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513458

Purolite International Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Jul 2012

CORPORATION TAX – trading profits – deductibility of expenses – contribution by UK member of group to legal costs of prosecution in United States of directors and US parent company for alleged violations of Cuban embargo – whether for purposes of UK company’s trade – on facts, held no – whether decision to allocate costs as between US and UK companies taken by same directors solely in interests of UK company – no – held that expenditure not incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of UK company’s trade – appeal dismissed

[2012] UKFTT 475 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.466054

Spring Salmon and Seafood Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 May 2013

CORPORATION TAX – appeal against amendments made by closure notices – jurisdiction – claim for terminal loss relief – denied in closure notices relating to other years not under appeal – whether jurisdiction to consider in this appeal – no – claim that tax already paid – amended to ‘nil’ by closure notices under appeal – whether jurisdiction – yes subject to undetermined point on abuse of process

[2013] UKFTT 320 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513462

Scotts Atlantic Management Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 May 2013

FTTTx Corporation tax – whether value contributed to Employee Benefit Trusts was deductible for corporation tax purposes – whether director was chargeable to income tax on benefits made available to him – if there was a PAYE liability on the companies, whether that could be traced to the director under Regulation 72 – whether the corporation tax deduction (if allowable on general principles) was denied by paragraph 1 Schedule 24 FA 2003 in the event that the benefits were not taxable as emoluments or earnings of the director – Corporation tax appeal dismissed – Income tax appeal allowed

[2013] UKFTT 299 (TC)
Bailii

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513460

Blenheims Estate and Asset Management Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 May 2013

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – debit for accounting charge in respect of amortisation of goodwill – whether goodwill acquired from a related party where transfer of goodwill effected as part of wider transaction under which transferor’s shareholding in claimant company was subject to purchase and option arrangements – claimant company arguing for purposive construction of commencement provisions – paragraph 118(1)(b) of Schedule 29, Finance Act 2002 – transferor was related party in relation to claimant company at time it acquired the goodwill – claimant company not entitled to debit – appeal dismissed

Sadler TJ
[2013] UKFTT 290 (TC)
Bailii

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513436

Supaglazing Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Dec 2018

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Assessment/Self-Assessment – discovery assessments – whether or not HMRC able to raise discovery assessments on the grounds of carelessness – director of appellant genuinely believed the return to be correct – whether reasonable for her to hold that belief – held not – whether carelessness by accountant – held yes – appeal dismissed

[2018] UKFTT 712 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.632478

TSD Design Development Engineering Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Apr 2012

CORPORATION TAX – voluntary disclosure giving rise to increased tax liability interest and penalties – managing director aware of fraud allegedly perpetrated by company secretary – withdrawal of profits treated as loans under s 419 ICTA 1988 – company properly assessed to tax – appeal dismissed

[2012] UKFTT 247 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.462720

Partito Media Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Apr 2012

Corporation tax – Notice to File and fixed rate penalties sent to the company’s former registered office – whether validly served – no – tax-related penalty validly served – whether reasonable excuse – yes – whether penalty charged for failure to notify – no – appeal allowed and penalties set aside

[2012] UKFTT 256 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.462709

Elsina Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jan 2015

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – self assessment – returns – penalties – potential lost revenue – substantial losses – whether no reasonable prospect of losses being used to reduce tax liability – burden of proof – extent of evidence – held, in absence of sufficient evidence, that requirement in para 7(5) Sch 24 FA 2007 not met – penalties due – no basis for suspension of penalties – appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 14 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.541506

Commission v United Kingdom: ECJ 3 Feb 2015

ECJ (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 49 TFEU – Article 31 of the EEA Agreement – Corporation tax – Groups of companies – Group relief – Transfer of losses sustained by a non-resident subsidiary – Conditions – Date to be used for determining whether the losses of the non-resident subsidiary are definitive

V. Skouris, P
C-172/13, [2015] EUECJ C-172/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:50
Bailii
European

European, Corporation Tax

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.542232

Itelcar – Automoveis De Aluguer Lda v Fazenda Publica: ECJ 3 Oct 2013

ECJ Free movement of capital – Tax legislation – Corporation tax – Interest paid by a resident company on funds lent by a company established in a non-member country – Existence of ‘special relations’ between those companies – Thin capitalisation rules – No right of deduction in relation to interest on the part of the overall debt regarded as excessive – Interest deductible if paid to a company resident in the national territory – Tax evasion and avoidance – Wholly artificial arrangements – Arm’s length terms – Proportionality

ECLI:EU:C:2013:629, [2013] EUECJ C-282/12
Bailii
European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.516348

The Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Philips Electronics Uk Ltd: ECJ 6 Sep 2012

hmrc_philipsECJ2012

ECJ Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Corporation tax – Tax relief – National legislation excluding the transfer of losses incurred in the national territory by a non-resident branch of a company established in another Member State to a company of the same group established in the national territory

J-C Bonichot R
C-18/11, [2012] EUECJ C-18/11
Bailii

European, Corporation Tax

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.464423

Shop Direct Group and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Feb 2012

FTTTx Corporation tax – receipts of payments in respect of overpaid VAT and statutory interest – whether VAT repayments trading receipts – whether payments in respect of supplies made in discontinued trades chargeable to tax as post-cessation receipts – ICTA 1988, ss 103 and 106(2) – whether payments in respect of interest taxable under Sch D, Case III – loan relationships rules – whether a ‘money debt’ – FA 1996, s 100

Roger Berner J
[2012] UKFTT 127 (TC)
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 103 106
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromShop Direct Group, Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v HMRC UTTC 19-Apr-2013
UTTC Corporation Tax: Effect of receipt by trader or successor to trade of sums in respect of VAT repaid under s80 VATA to representative member of VAT group plus interest paid under s78 VATA. Question of . .
At FTTTxShop Direct Group and Others v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 19-Apr-2013
. .
At FTTTxShop Direct Group v Revenue and Customs CA 11-Mar-2014
The company sought to challenge the assessment to corporation tax of a very large repayment of VAT, together with an even larger amount of interest.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
At FTTTxShop Direct Group v Revenue and Customs SC 17-Feb-2016
The Court considered the interpretation of the sections which applied corporation tax to post-cessation receipts. Companies had received from the Inland Revenue substantial repayments of VAT together with interest. There had been reorganisations of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.451988

Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another: HL 25 Oct 2006

The tax payer had overpaid Advance Corporation Tax under an error of law. It sought repayment. The revenue contended that the claim was time barred.
Held: The claim was in restitution, and the limitation period began to run from the date when the claimants discovered their mistake. The appellants had submitted that section 33 of the 1973 Act provided the second of only two remedies for recovery of tax paid under a mistake of law. The first remedy was said to be a common law right to recover tax unlawfully demanded, of which Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe said: ‘When parliament enacts a special regime providing special rights and remedies, that regime may (but does not always) supersede and displace common law rights and remedies (or more general statutory rights and remedies). Whether it has that effect is a question of statutory construction.’
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘The answer, at any rate for the moment, is that unlike civilian systems, English law has no general principle that to retain money paid without any legal basis (such as debt, gift, compromise, etc) is unjust enrichment. In the Woolwich case [1993] AC 70, 172 Lord Goff said that English law might have developed so as to recognise such a general principle – the condictio indebiti of civilian law – but had not done so. In England, the claimant has to prove that the circumstances in which the payment was made come within one of the categories which the law recognizes as sufficient to make retention by the recipient unjust. Lord Goff provided a list in the Woolwich case at pp 164-165 and the decision itself added another. [i.e. money paid by way of tax to a public body which was acting ultra vires]’

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Times 26-Oct-2006, [2006] UKHL 49, [2007] 1 AC 558, [2006] BTC 781, [2007] Eu LR 226, [2007] 1 CMLR 14, [2006] STI 2386, [2006] 3 WLR 781, [2007] 1 All ER 449
Bailii, HL
Limitation Act 1980 32(1), Taxes Management Act 1973 33
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMeadows v Grand Junction Waterworks Company 1905
. .
CitedWoolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners (2) HL 20-Jul-1992
The society had set out to assert that regulations were unlawful in creating a double taxation. It paid money on account of the tax demanded. It won and recovered the sums paid, but the revenue refused to pay any interest accrued on the sums paid. . .
CitedHenderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .
CitedMarcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The . .
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 . .
CitedNational Provincial Bank Limited v Ainsworth HL 1965
The significance of the distinction between occupation and rights was that although the deserted wife was in actual occupation of the former matrimonial home, the quality of her rights was not such as to be capable of amounting to an overriding . .
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 . .
At First InstanceDeutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, HM Attorney General ChD 18-Jul-2003
The taxpayer sought to bring an action for restitution by the revenue of sums paid under a mistake of law. Under the Metallgesellschaft decision, rights of election for recovery of overpaid tax applied only between UK resident companies.
Held: . .
Appeal fromInland Revenue and Another v Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc CA 4-Feb-2005
The company sought repayment of excess advance corporation tax payments made under a mistake of law. The question was the extent of the effect of the ruling in Klienwort Benson, in particular whether it covered sums paid as taxation, and how the law . .

Cited by:
CitedTotal Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 31-Jan-2007
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
CitedAwoyomi v Radford and Another QBD 12-Jul-2007
The claimant sought damages from the defendant barristers who had represented her in criminal proceedings. They had not passed on to her the statement made by the judge in chambers that if she pleaded guilty he would not impose a sentence of . .
CitedSempra 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 . .
CitedSomerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
CitedTotal Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
CitedFender (Administrator of FG Collier and Sons Ltd) v National Westminster Bank Plc ChD 26-Sep-2008
The administrator sought declarations as to whether to treat the bank as a secured or unsecured creditor.
Held: The court directed the Administrator to recognise the Bank as a secured creditor, as if the Deed of Release had never been . .
CitedMcE, Re; McE v Prison Service of Northern Ireland and Another HL 11-Mar-2009
Complaint was made that the prisoner’s privileged conversations with his solicitors had been intercepted by the police.
Held: The Act made explicit provisions allowing such interception and set out the appropriate safeguards. The interceptions . .
CitedKommune and Another v DEPFA Acs Bank ComC 4-Sep-2009
Local authorities in Denmark sought to recover sums paid to the defendant banks for swap trading, saying that the payments had been outwith their powers. . .
CitedChild Poverty Action Group, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Work and Pensions CA 14-Oct-2009
CPAG appealed against a refusal of a declaration that the respondent could use only the 1992 Act to recover overpayment of benefits where there had been neither misrepresentation nor non-disclosure.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the court . .
CitedThe Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 8-Dec-2010
The Action Group had obtained a declaration that, where an overpayment of benefits had arisen due to a miscalculation by the officers of the Department, any process of recovering the overpayment must be by the Act, and that the Department could not . .
CitedTest Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue SC 23-May-2012
The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European . .
CitedZurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .
CitedMarine Trade Sa v Pioneer Freight Futures Co Ltd Bvi and Another ComC 29-Oct-2009
The parties stood to make substantial losses against each other under contracts for differences after the dramatic fall in the freight market in the financial turmoil of late 2008. . .
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Limitation, Equity, Taxes Management

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.245608

HM Revenue and Customs v Bristol and West Plc: CA 27 Apr 2016

The Court was asked as to the appropriate Corporation Tax treatment of the novation of a portfolio of ‘in the money’ interest-rate swaps (‘the Novation’) to another company in the same group, Bank of Ireland Business Finance Limited for a premium of andpound;91 million, and the validity of a notice issued by the revenue.
Held: The email from the revenue was enough to invalidate the notice. The revenue had no capacity to both issue and suspend operation of a closure notice.

Black, Briggs, David Richards LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 397, [2016] WLR(D) 239
Bailii, WLRD
Finance Act 1998
England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.563070

Easow and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Sep 2013

FTTTx INCOME TAX – discovery assessments – whether made within time limits – which time limits applied – whether conduct of respective appellants fraudulent or negligent – whether in relation to subsequent assessments their conduct negligent or deliberate – held, assessments made within time – assessments confirmed – penalties confirmed – appeals dismissed
CORPORATION TAX – discovery assessments – whether within time limits – which time limits applied – whether conduct of company and directors fraudulent or negligent – held, assessments made within time – assessments confirmed – assessments under s 419 ICTA 1988 confirmed – penalties confirmed – appeal dismissed

[2013] UKFTT 493 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.516294

Marks 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 another Member State by a non-resident subsidiary – Not included.
Article 43 EC did not preclude provisions of a Member State which prevented a resident parent company from claiming group relief for losses incurred by a subsidiary established in another Member State. The restriction was justified by three grounds when taken together: preserving the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States; preventing losses being taken into account twice in different Member States; and preventing the risk of tax avoidance if the taxpayer were to be free to choose the Member State in which to claim relief.
As to the proportionality of the restriction, however, the ECJ went on to say this:
‘In that regard, the Court considers that the restrictive measure at issue in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to attain the essential part of the objectives pursued where:
– the non-resident subsidiary has exhausted the possibilities available in its State of residence of having the losses taken into account for the accounting period concerned by the claim for relief and also for previous accounting periods, if necessary by transferring those losses to a third party or by offsetting the losses against the profits made by the subsidiary in previous periods, and
– there is no possibility for the foreign subsidiary’s losses to be taken into account in its state of residence for future periods either by the subsidiary itself or by a third party, in particular where the subsidiary has been sold to that third party.
Where, in one Member State, the resident parent company demonstrates to the tax authorities that those conditions are fulfilled, it is contrary to article 43 EC and 48 EC to preclude the possibility for the parent company to deduct from its taxable profits in that Member State the losses incurred by its non-resident subsidiary.’

V Skouris, P
C-446/03, [2005] EUECJ C-446/03, Times 15-Dec-2005, [2006] CEC 299, [2006] BTC 318, 8 ITL Rep 358, [2006] Ch 184, [2005] ECR I-10837, [2006] 1 CMLR 18, [2006] STI 41, [2006] All ER (EC) 255, [2006] 2 WLR 250, [2006] STC 237
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 402, Article 43 EC
European
Citing:
Reference fromMarks 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. . .

Cited by:
At ECJHalsey (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 . .
At 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 . .
At ECJHM 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 . .
At 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 . .
At ECJMarks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 10-Apr-2006
Preliminary judgment. . .
At ECJRevenue 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Corporation Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.235939

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, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC summary, SC
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 November 2021; Ref: scu.521992

Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v Revenue and Customs: CA 20 May 2016

‘This judgment is about the tax effectiveness of a ‘rate-boosting’ scheme (‘the Scheme’), that is, a scheme to boost claims to double tax credit relief (‘DTR’) in the hands of a UK parent company (‘the UK ultimate parent’) on a dividend (‘a Case V dividend’) received by it from any of its overseas subsidiaries and originating from another UK resident company (‘the UK subsidiary’). A Case V dividend is taxable under Case V of schedule D to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (‘ICTA’). The UK ultimate parent is entitled to credit for foreign tax suffered by the paying company (‘the paying subsidiary’) and its subsidiaries.’

Arden. Kitchin, Jackson LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 468
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.564449

Standfast Corporate Underwriters Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Feb 2014

FTTTx Corporation tax – corporate underwriter at Lloyd’s – application of anti-loss buying restriction in s227A Finance Act 1994 – taxpayer owned by consortium during period of ‘group-relief continuity condition’ in s227A(5), subsequently acquired as wholly-owned subsidiary of one of the consortium members – then seeking to surrender in later period, by way of group claim, underwriting losses which had been effectively deferred to that period by successive elections under s107(4) Finance Act 2000 – whether the losses sought to be surrendered (or some part of them) could be regarded as ‘losses of the last active underwriting year’ – held yes, some part of them – whether existence of consortium relief relationship between companies during the relevant period satisfied the ‘group-relief continuity condition’ in s227A(5), in spite of later surrender being purportedly made pursuant to a group (and not consortium) claim – held yes – whether commencement provision, properly interpreted, applied s227A to the present facts – held no – appeal allowed

Poole TJ
[2014] UKFTT 182 (TC)
Bailii
Finance Act 1994 227A
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.521804

Six Continents Ltd and Another v Inland Revenue and Another: ChD 5 Oct 2016

Recovery of wrongly charged tax

The second claimant claimed restitution from the defendants in respect of United Kingdom corporation tax unlawfully charged on certain dividends paid to it by a wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated and resident in the Netherlands.

Henderson J
[2016] EWHC 2426 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.569929

Autologic 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 other companies should proceed through the Commissioners who could implement European law directly. The taxpayers challenged their jurisdiction to hear certain claims.
Held: Where the Commissioners had jurisdiction, the taxpayers had an obligation to take their claims to the Commissioners.
Where the time limit for use of the statutory scheme had not expired, a taxpayer’s only way of challenging a taxing provision as contrary to European law was by making use of the statutory tribunal scheme, as opposed to judicial review.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said: ‘Underlying this conclusion is a point of general policy concerning cases where an applicant claims he has been wrongly deprived of benefits to which he is entitled under directly applicable provisions of Community law. Where Parliament has assigned to a specialist tribunal responsibility for adjudicating on disputes over the payment of such benefits, and an application to that tribunal is not time-barred, in the ordinary course the primary remedy for non-receipt of such benefits is to have recourse to that tribunal. That tribunal will give effect to the applicant’s rights under directly enforceable provisions of Community law as well as his rights under domestic law. The tribunal will afford him the benefits to which he is properly entitled. In such cases, where that course is still available to an applicant, claims in the High Court founded on an alleged breach of Community law will not normally be appropriate.’
Lord Millett said that ‘the computation of a taxpayer’s taxable profits for the purpose of determining his liability to tax is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the commissioners’
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe referred to: ‘the general principle embodied in tax law before self-assessment, that any dispute with the revenue about an individual’s liability to income tax or a company’s liability to corporation tax is to be determined in the first instance by the general commissioners or the special commissioners.’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
[2005] UKHL 54, Times 01-Aug-2005, [2005] 3 CMLR 2, [2005] STC 1357, [2005] STI 1336, [2006] 1 AC 118, [2005] 3 WLR 339, [2005] 4 All ER 1141, [2005] BTC 402, [2006] Eu LR 131, 77 TC 504
Bailii, House of Lords
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedImperial 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 . .
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 . .
Appeal fromLoss Relief Group, Test Claimants In v Inland Revenue CA 28-May-2004
The taxpayers sought determination by the court of their various claims for group tax relief. The High Court had declined jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The judge’s attitude was one which would perhaps appeal to most lawyers . .
At first instanceNEC 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 First InstanceClaimants under the Loss Relief Group Litigation Order v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 3-Mar-2004
Various claimants sought to have issues of law on group relief and other issues settled under a group litigation order.
Held: The High Court had no jurisdiction to hear such matters until they had first been raised in ordinary tax appeals . .
CitedIn re Vandervell’s Trusts (No 1); Vandervell Trustees Limited v White and Others HL 15-Jul-1970
Practice – Parties – Joinder – Proceedings between subjects raising issues material to income tax – Joinder of Commissioners of Inland Revenue – Income Tax Act 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2, c.10), ss. 52 and 64 ; Income Tax Management Act . .
MentionedBarraclough v Brown HL 1897
The 1889 Act gave statutory undertakers who had incurred expenditure in removing a sunken vessel a right ‘to recover such expenses from the owner of such vessel in a court of summary jurisdiction.’ the undertakers began their action in the High . .
ApprovedGlaxo 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 . .
At Special ComissionersMarks 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 . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Transport, Ex parte Factortame Ltd HL 18-May-1989
The applicants were companies owned largely by Spanish nationals operating fishing vessels within UK waters. The 1988 Act required them to re-register the vessels as British fishing vessels. The sought suspension of enforcement pending a reference . .
CitedAmministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA (No 2) ECJ 9-Mar-1978
ECJ The Court of Justice considered a reference for a preliminary ruling, pursuant to article 1977 of the Treaty, as having been validly brought before it so long as the reference has not been withdrawn by the . .
CitedImperial Chemical Industries Plc v Colmer (Inspector of Taxes) (No 2) HL 18-Nov-1999
Where a group of companies sought consortium group relief, but the majority of the companies within the group were based outside the European Union, the court need not apply European Union standards to the test, but could instead apply the standards . .
CitedD v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst /Particulieren /Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (Free Movement Of Capital) ECJ 5-Jul-2005
ECJ Tax legislation – Wealth tax – Entitlement to an allowance – Separate treatment of residents and non-residents – Double taxation convention. . .
CitedDorsch Consult Ingenieursgesellschaft v Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH ECJ 17-Sep-1997
ECJ Preliminary rulings – Reference to the Court – National court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty – Definition – Body competent to hear appeals concerning the award of public . .
CitedSteenhorst-Neerings v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor Detailhandel, Ambachten en Huisvrouwen ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Europa Community law does not preclude the application of a national rule of law according to which benefits for incapacity for work are payable no more than one year before the date of claim, in the case where . .
CitedBrasserie du Pecheur v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and others (4) ECJ 5-Mar-1996
Member states may be liable to individuals for their failure to implement EU laws. The right of individuals to rely on directly applicable provisions of the EC Treaty before national courts is not sufficient in itself to ensure full and complete . .
CitedElsie Rita Johnson v Chief Adjudication Officer ECJ 6-Dec-1994
Europa Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Directive 79/7 – Article 4(1) – Direct effect – National legislation limiting the period prior to the bringing of a claim . .
CitedInland Revenue and Another v Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc CA 4-Feb-2005
The company sought repayment of excess advance corporation tax payments made under a mistake of law. The question was the extent of the effect of the ruling in Klienwort Benson, in particular whether it covered sums paid as taxation, and how the law . .
CitedAmon v Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd 1956
The court analysed the circumstances under which additional parties might be joined to an action by a defendant, applying a narrow interpretation. The court considered whether a defendant may be added against the parties’ wishes: ‘There are two . .
CitedPickstone v Freemans Plc HL 30-Jun-1988
The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim . .
CitedArgosam Finance Co Ltd v Oxby (Inspector of Taxes) CA 1965
A company which dealt in shares issued an originating summons in the Chancery Division requesting a declaration as to the correct method of computing its income for the purposes of loss relief. The revenue challenged the proceedings as an abuse of . .
CitedIn re Vandervell’s Trusts; Vandervell Trustees Limited v White and Others CA 1970
The deceased had sought to create a trust to benefit the Royal College of Surgeons. The parties disputed its tax effect.
Held: Lord Denning MR said: ‘We will in this court give the rule a wide interpretation so as to enable any party to be . .
CitedJean Reyners v Belgian State ECJ 21-Jun-1974
Europa The rule on equal treatment with nationals is one of the fundamental legal provisions of the community. As a reference to a set of legislative provisions effectively applied by the country of establishment . .
CitedLitster and Others v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd HL 16-Mar-1989
The twelve applicants had been unfairly dismissed by the transferor immediately before the transfer, and for a reason connected with the transfer under section 8(1). The question was whether the liability for unfair dismissal compensation . .
CitedWoolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners (2) HL 20-Jul-1992
The society had set out to assert that regulations were unlawful in creating a double taxation. It paid money on account of the tax demanded. It won and recovered the sums paid, but the revenue refused to pay any interest accrued on the sums paid. . .
CitedRewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord Mbh Et Rewe-Markt Steffen v Hauptzollamt Kiel ECJ 7-Jul-1981
Europa The exemption provided for by regulation no 1544/69, as last amended by regulation no 3061/78, applies only to goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers coming from a non-member country. That . .
CitedEmmott v Minister for Social Welfare and Attorney General ECJ 25-Jul-1991
Europa So long as a directive has not been properly transposed into national law, individuals are unable to ascertain the full extent of their rights. That state of uncertainty for individuals subsists even after . .
CitedKobler v Republik Osterreich ECJ 30-Sep-2003
The claimant’s claim had been presented to the Supreme Administrative Court in Austria, who had referred a question to the ECJ. Following the Schoning decision, the court withdrew the referral, and dismissed the claim. He now claimed damages from . .
CitedMarshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No 2) ECJ 2-Aug-1993
The UK law limiting awards of damages in sex discrimination cases is unlawful, and fails to implement European directive fully. Financial compensation must be at a level adequate to achieve equality between the workers identified. . .
CitedRoquette Freres SA v Direction des services fiscaux du Pas-de-Calais ECJ 28-Nov-2000
Europa In the absence of Community rules on reimbursement of national charges levied though not due, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having . .
CitedRegina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte Michael Bishopp (for and on Behalf of Partners In Price Waterhouse (a Firm)) Admn 18-Dec-1997
. .
CitedPeterbroeck, Van Campenhout and Cie v Belgian State ECJ 14-Dec-1995
It is a basic principle of European Union law that national law should provide effective legal protection, by establishing a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure respect for the relevant European law right: ‘For the purposes of . .
CitedCriminal proceedings against Sanz de Lera and others ECJ 14-Dec-1995
Europa Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) of the Treaty, which prohibit restrictions on movements of capital between Member States and between Member States and non-member countries, on the one hand, and authorizing . .

Cited by:
CitedSharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd EAT 1-Nov-2005
EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence – In an equal pay claim involving a presumption of direct discrimination the genuine material factor defence requires justification by objective criteria.
The . .
CitedTotal Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
CitedBlackburn and Another v West Midlands Police CA 6-Nov-2008
The claimants, female police officers, complained that male officers had received priority payments where they had received none. The defendant said that the payments were justified in achieving a proper aim, namely the encouragement of night . .
CitedThe Bodo Community and Others v The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd TCC 20-Jun-2014
15,000 or more claimants and claims on behalf of children, sought damages at common law and statutory compensation under the law of Nigeria in relation to oil spills from pipelines said to have been caused by Shell Petroleum Development Company of . .
CitedCotter v Revenue and Customs SC 6-Nov-2013
This appeal asked as to the boundary between the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and that of the county court or the High Court, and the legality of the approach which the Revenue took to entries which Mr Cotter, had made in a . .
CitedHM Revenue and Customs v Cotter CA 8-Feb-2012
Mr Cotter’s accountants had submitted a second tax return adding claims to loss relief in the following year. The claims were contentious, but he invited a review by the Revenue asserting that the losses wiped out any liability to tax. The Revenue . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v Cotter ChD 14-Apr-2011
The taxpayer’s accountants had submitted a tax return amending the taxpayer’s own return adding claims for losses. The accountant acknowledged the contentious nature of the claim and invited a review. The Revenue sought now to recover the tax due . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.229067

Shop Direct Group, Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v HMRC: UTTC 19 Apr 2013

UTTC Corporation Tax: Effect of receipt by trader or successor to trade of sums in respect of VAT repaid under s80 VATA to representative member of VAT group plus interest paid under s78 VATA. Question of beneficial ownership of sums received and whether ‘arising from the trade’. Application of sections 103 and 106 ICTA 1988. Whether interest payments could be characterised as arising under a ‘loan relationship’ and amounted to a ‘money debt’ for purposes of section 100 FA 1996

Asplin J
[2013] UKUT 189 (TCC)
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 103 106
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromShop Direct Group and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 14-Feb-2012
FTTTx Corporation tax – receipts of payments in respect of overpaid VAT and statutory interest – whether VAT repayments trading receipts – whether payments in respect of supplies made in discontinued trades . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromShop Direct Group and Others v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 19-Apr-2013
. .
At UTTCShop Direct Group v Revenue and Customs CA 11-Mar-2014
The company sought to challenge the assessment to corporation tax of a very large repayment of VAT, together with an even larger amount of interest.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
At UTTCShop Direct Group v Revenue and Customs SC 17-Feb-2016
The Court considered the interpretation of the sections which applied corporation tax to post-cessation receipts. Companies had received from the Inland Revenue substantial repayments of VAT together with interest. There had been reorganisations of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.509187

J D Wetherspoon Plc v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Dec 2009

FTTTx Corporation tax – capital allowances – machinery or plant – conversion, fitting out and refurbishment of public houses – whether items of cost qualify for allowances under section 24 CAA 1990 or section 66 CAA 1990 (or both) – consideration of what amounts to alterations to an existing building incidental to the installation of machinery or plant – decision in principle on sample expenditure – Appellant successful in part.

[2009] UKFTT 374 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.409152

Holland v Revenue and Customs and Another: CA 2 Jul 2009

The appellant supported IT workers. Through his own company, he set up companies in which his company was a director, and which companies in turn employed the IT workers securing substantial savings in higher rate Corporation Tax.
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. Though the appellant was not himself a director in the companies, his company was and it in turn held the directorships, and such a person might according to the circumstances be personally liable for misfeasance as a de facto director of them under section 744. In this case he was not.

Ward, Rimer, Elias LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 625, [2009] STC 1639, [2009] STI 2026, Times 28-Jul-2009, [2009] 2 BCLC 309
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 212, Companies Act 1985 727 744
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromHM Revenue and Customs v Holland and Another ChD 24-Jun-2008
The Revenue sought to recover from the defendant substantial sums in respect of allegedly unlawful dividends paid from an insolvent company. They said that the defendant and his wife were de facto directors.
Held: Claims agains the second . .
CitedSalomon v A Salomon and Company Ltd HL 16-Nov-1896
A Company and its Directors are not same paersons
Mr Salomon had incorporated his long standing personal business of shoe manufacture into a limited company. He held nearly all the shares, and had received debentures on the transfer into the company of his former business. The business failed, and . .
CitedIn re Hydrodam (Corby) Limited ChD 1994
ET plc wholly owned MCP Ltd which wholly owned Landsaver MCP Limited, which wholly owned Hydrodam (Corby) Limited (‘HCL’). The only de jure directors of HCL were two Channel Island companies. HCL went into compulsory liquidation and its liquidator . .
CitedIn re Bulawayo 1907
The court asked as to the possibility of appointing a company as a director of another company in the absence of an express power in the articles. . .
CitedSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Hall and Nuttall ChD 28-Jul-2006
The Secretary sought disqualification of the defendants. The second defendant had not been a director of the company, but director of another company which in turn held a directorship in the defaulting company.
Held: The claim failed: ‘i) As I . .
CitedRe Kaytech International plc; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Kaczer and others CA 1999
Robert Walker LJ said that the expression ‘de facto director’ had been in use for a long time, and commented on the failure to distinguish in pleadings between pleas that someone was a shadow or a de facto director. The two different labels were not . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromHolland v Revenue and Customs and Another SC 24-Nov-2010
The Revenue sought an order under section 212 of the 1986 Act, for payment of the tax debts of the insolvent company by a de facto director. H had organised a scheme under which IT contractors had worked through companies created by him under a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Corporation Tax

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.347298

Explainaway Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Jun 2011

Corporation tax – scheme to avoid corporation 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, s 2 and s 143 – application of Ramsay principle – whether interest costs for scheme borrowings had an unallowable purpose – FA 1996, Sch 9, para 13

[2011] UKFTT 414 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.443107

Boake Allen Ltd and others v Revenue and Customs: HL 23 May 2007

The revenue appealed against a decision that provisions which did not allow the defendants, as companies with foreign parents, the right to make group income elections which would have allowed them to pay on their profits to their parent companies free of advance corporation tax, were discriminatory.
Held: The discrimination was not on the basis that the capital of the subsidiary was controlled by a foreign resident company. The nature of election allowed by the statute was as to which of two companies would pay the tax. That concept had no meaning when applied to a company which would not pay such a tax. The difference was not improper discrimination.

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Woolf, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2007] UKHL 25, Times 24-May-2007, [2007] 1 WLR 1386, [2007] 3 All ER 605
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 247
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBoake Allen Ltd and others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 31-Jan-2006
The claimant companies had paid corporation tax under rules which had later been found to be discriminatory. They now sought repayment by virtue of double taxation agreements with the countries in which the parent companies were based.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.252518

Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue: SC 23 May 2012

The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European subsidiaries, breach of EU Treaty guarantees of freedom of establishment and of movement of capital. The court was now asked as to the calculation of damages. Two remedies might be available: a demand for repayment of tax unlawfully demanded (under Woolwich), or for tax paid under a mistake of law (under DMG). The first would be time barred. The limit had been relaxed under the 1980 Act for the second. The Court of Appeal had found the Woolwich type remedy the appropriate one. The taxpayer appealed.
Held: As to whether Parliament had the right to amend the law in a way which disallowed access to both types of claims, the principle issue, a reference was made back to the European Court. The claimants’ appeal were dismissed on the issues of the application of section 32(1)(c) of the 1980 Act applied to their claims, and as to the significance of the difference between tax paid under demand or on filing a tax return.
The appeal succeeded in arguing that section 33 can be given an interpretation which conforms with EU law by not construing it as impliedly setting itself up as an exclusive provision. The common law claim in unjust enrichment remains available to the appellants. The appeal on this issue was allowed.
Lord Hope said: ‘I would hold that Parliament could not lawfully curtail without notice the extended limitation period under section 32(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980 for the mistake cause of action by section 320 FA 2004.’

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed
[2012] UKSC 19, [2012] WLR(D) 161, [2012] STC 1362, [2012] 2 WLR 1149, [2012] 3 All ER 909, [2012] BTC 312, [2012] 2 AC 337, [2012] Bus LR 1033, [2012] STI 1707, UKSC 2010/0085
Bailii, SC, SC Summary
Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(c), Finance Act 2007 107
England and Wales
Citing:
At First InstanceTest 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 . .
Appeal fromFranked Investment Group Litigation Test Claimants v Inland Revenue and Another CA 23-Feb-2010
. .
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 . .
CitedACF Chemiefarma v Commission ECJ 15-Jul-1970
ECJ 1. The provisional character conferred by article 9(3) of Regulation no 17 on steps taken by national authorities in connexion with the implementation of article 85 of the EEC Treaty cannot call in question . .
CitedWoolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners (2) HL 20-Jul-1992
The society had set out to assert that regulations were unlawful in creating a double taxation. It paid money on account of the tax demanded. It won and recovered the sums paid, but the revenue refused to pay any interest accrued on the sums paid. . .
At ECJTest 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 . .
CitedBrooksbank v Smith 24-Feb-1836
In this case, trustees under a will, who were solicitors, had by mistake transferred stock to a person not entitled. Baron Alderson said, this being under circumstances of mistake, it appeared clear to him that the Plaintiffs were entitled to . .
CitedBaker v Courage and Co 1910
The plaintiff had owned a public house. On selling the leasehold to the defendants brewers, they had overpaid him by andpound;1,000. He deposited a sum at interest with the defendants. When he came to withdraw the last of the deposit (by coincidence . .
CitedPhillips-Higgins v Harper QBD 1954
A claim was made to recover monies due under a contract where the plaintiff had failed to realise that the balance was due to her, and by that mistake the action was concealed from her.
Held: Pearson J said: ‘But that is not sufficient. . .
CitedMarleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
CitedBrasserie du Pecheur v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and others (4) ECJ 5-Mar-1996
Member states may be liable to individuals for their failure to implement EU laws. The right of individuals to rely on directly applicable provisions of the EC Treaty before national courts is not sufficient in itself to ensure full and complete . .
CitedMorgan Guaranty v Lothian Regional Council SCS 1-Dec-1994
. .
CitedHM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
CitedDeutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another HL 25-Oct-2006
The tax payer had overpaid Advance Corporation Tax under an error of law. It sought repayment. The revenue contended that the claim was time barred.
Held: The claim was in restitution, and the limitation period began to run from the date when . .
CitedBoake Allen Ltd and others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 31-Jan-2006
The claimant companies had paid corporation tax under rules which had later been found to be discriminatory. They now sought repayment by virtue of double taxation agreements with the countries in which the parent companies were based.
Held: . .
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 . .
CitedNEC 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 . .

Cited by:
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 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.

European, Corporation Tax, Limitation, Taxes Management, Damages

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.459618

HBOS Treasury Services Plc v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Oct 2009

FTTTx Corporation Tax – Joint referral of four disputed issues in relation to treatment of derivatives and to capital gains treatment of the sale of a company – scheme for the avoidance of income recognition on a re-couponing of an ‘in the money’ fixed/floating swap – paras 15 and 28 of Schedule 26 to FA 2002 – capital gains value shifting – Section 30 TCGAct 1992- one issue determined in favour of the taxpayer company and three issues determined in favour of HMRC.

Nowlan TJ
[2009] UKFTT 261 (TC), [2009] STI 3105, [2010] SFTD 134
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Income Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.409075

Memec Plc v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: CA 9 Jun 1998

Memec plc, was a partner in a German silent partnership (stille Gesellschaft). The partnership had no separate legal personality, but was a contractual arrangement under which Plc had the right to receive a share of the profits of the business carried on by the other partner, in return for a capital payment. The other partner, Memec GmbH, was a German company, wholly owned by Plc. It alone carried on the business of the silent partnership. It alone owned the assets of the business, and the income from those assets as it accrued. It had wholly owned subsidiaries, which were also German companies. The subsidiaries paid dividends to GmbH, and that income formed the principal source of the profits of the partnership, which were shared between the partners in accordance with their agreement. The question was whether Plc could claim credit under the double taxation agreement for German taxes paid by the subsidiaries of GmbH on their trading profits.
Held: Double taxation relief was not available where money earned by German Company on German trading was transferred to English company in silent partnership, since it was not a payment of dividends. The court emphasised the need to identify the source of the UK company’s income, and whether its partnership (governed by foreign law) with a foreign subsidiary, which received the dividends in question and then made payments to the UK company in accordance with the partnership agreement, was ‘transparent’, in the sense that the payment of the dividends to the foreign subsidiary, and its payment to the UK company of the sums due under the partnership agreement, were equivalent to the payment of the dividends directly to the UK company itself.

Peter Gibson, Henry LJJ, Sir Peter Staughton
Times 01-Jul-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 941, [1998] STC 754, (1998) 1 ITL Rep 3, (1998) 71 TC 77, [1998] BTC 251
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Part XVIII
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromMemec Plc v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 7-Nov-1996
Double taxation relief was not available for a distribution by a German company to its UK partner.
An international treaty should be construed in a manner which is ‘international, not exclusively English’. . .

Cited by:
CitedAnson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.144420

Fidex 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 BNP Paribas group of companies of which Fidex forms a part.’

Arden, Kitchin, LJJ, Sir Stephen Richards
[2016] EWCA Civ 385, [2016] STC 1920, [2016] BTC 16, [2016] 4 All ER 1063
Bailii
Finance Act 1996
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTXFidex 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 – . .
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.562450

Revenue and Customs v Leekes Ltd: UTTC 12 Jul 2016

UTTC CORPORATION TAX – acquisition of company with accrued losses by company carrying on similar trade – whether acquirer entitled to set losses against income of enlarged group – ICTA ss 337, 343, 393 – losses to be set only against income of predecessor’s trade – appeal allowed

[2016] UKUT 320 (TCC), [2016] BTC 513, [2016] STC 1970, [2016] STI 2204
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.567366

Cristel Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Jun 2012

FTTTx Corporation tax – permission to make a late appeal in relation to the tax for the accounting period ending May 2003 – whether precluded by previous HMRC amendments – whether in the interests of justice to allow a late appeal – permission refused.

Anne Redston
[2012] UKFTT 400 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.462790

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd v The Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue And Customs: ECJ 24 Oct 2013

ECJ Opinion – Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Corporation tax – Tax relief – Consortium claim for group relief (consortium relief) – National legislation excluding the transfer of losses within the national territory by one consortium company to another company belonging to a company group to which a ‘link company’ that is also a member of the consortium belongs – Residence requirement imposed on the link company – Discrimination according to the place of the corporate seat – Ultimate parent in third country – Corporate ties passing through third countries

Jaaskinen AG
C-80/12, [2013] EUECJ C-80/12
Bailii
European
Citing:
ReferenceThe Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 19-Dec-2011
Corporation tax – joint referral – FA 1998, Sch 18, para 31A – group relief – consortium – surrendering company indirectly partly owned by Luxembourg company – condition that ‘link company’ must be UK resident or carry on a trade in the UK through a . .

Cited by:
OpinionFelixstowe Dock And Railway Company Ltd v The Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue And Customs ECJ 1-Apr-2014
Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment – Corporation tax – Tax relief – Groups of companies and consortia – National legislation permitting losses to be transferred between a company belonging to a consortium and a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.516981

JD Wetherspoon v HMRC: UTTC 31 Jan 2012

UTTC Corporation tax – capital allowances – machinery or plant – conversion, fitting out and refurbishment of public houses – whether items of cost qualify for allowances under section 24 CAA 1990 or section 66 CAA 1990 (or both) – consideration of what amounts to alterations to an existing building incidental to the installation of machinery or plant – decision in principle on sample expenditure.

ColinBishopp Judge
[2012] UKUT 42 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.452886

Zoki UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Feb 2014

FTTTx Paye and CT – late lodging of employer’s annual return and ct return- bookkeeper off sick – lack of funds due to downturn in business due to recession – lack of action by appellants – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Baird J
[2014] UKFTT 189 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.521813

Argenta Spaarbank Nv v Belgische Staat: ECJ 4 Jul 2013

argentasnv_belgECJ0713

ECJ Tax legislation – Corporation tax – Deduction for risk capital – Notional interest – Reduction of the amount deductible by companies with establishments abroad the income from which is exempt under double taxation conventions

C-350/11, [2013] EUECJ C-350/11
Bailii

European, Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.512168

The 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 in question.
‘Our procedural system is and remains an adversarial one. It is for the parties (subject to the control of the court) to define the issues on which the court is invited to adjudicate. This function is the purpose of statements of case. The setting out of a party’s case in a statement of case enables the other party to know what points are in issue, what documents to disclose, what evidence to call and how to prepare for trial. It is inimical to a fair hearing that a party should be exposed to issues and arguments of which he has had no fair warning. If a party wishes to raise a new point, he should do so by amending a statement of case. We were told that by the time that skeleton arguments for trial were served each party would know what points were in issue. We do not regard that as sufficient. In this case, for example, HMRC’s skeleton argument was served about ten days before the trial started. If (as in fact happened in this case) HMRC wished to argue that the evidence proposed to be called by Prudential was directed at the wrong issue (being an issue that had not been raised before) ten days’ prior notice was manifestly inadequate.
Although in days gone by the court would routinely allow late amendments to statements of case, in more recent time attitudes have changed. It is now the case that the court requires strong justification for a late amendment. This is not only in the interest of the opposing party but also consonant with the interests of other litigants in other cases before the court and the court’s duty to allocate a proportionate share of the court’s resources to any particular case. Where a new issue arises which is not foreshadowed in a statement of case, a party needs the court’s permission to advance it. The court is then faced with a discretionary case management decision, to be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective.’

Lewison, Christopher Clarke, Sales LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 376, [2016] BTC 15, [2016] STI 1430, [2016] STC 1798, [2017] 1 All ER 815
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At CAPrudential 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 . .
CitedScott v Bridge and Others ChD 25-Nov-2020
Claim to recover money and property said to have been transferred by the claimant to the defendants or one or more of them. The money concerned came from a bank account belonging to the claimant. The property concerned consisted of two . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.562160

Holland v Revenue and Customs and Another: SC 24 Nov 2010

The Revenue sought an order under section 212 of the 1986 Act, for payment of the tax debts of the insolvent company by a de facto director. H had organised a scheme under which IT contractors had worked through companies created by him under a composite company scheme, and in each of which he retained one share. When the companies became insolvent, HMRC said that the companies had paid dividends without the supporting assets, and that H was a de facto director having retained a single share in each company through his own company. No allegation was made that this structure was a sham and there was never any pleading of dishonesty. HMRC now appealed a finding that he was not so liable.
Held: The appeal failed (Lords Walker and Clarke dissenting). The mere fact of acting as a director of a corporate director will not be enough for an individual to become a de facto director of the subject company. Acts entirely within the ambit of the duties and responsibilities of a director of the corporate director, are to be attributed to that capacity. The court must respect the separate identities in law of the various companies. The court must look to the actual actions of the person to see whether they amounted to an assumption of the responsibilities of a director.
Lord Walker said that a person which takes all the important decisions of a company’s management, and ensures that they are given effect to acts as a director. He would have allowed the appeal.

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lord Collins, Lord Clarke, Lord Saville
[2010] UKSC 51, UKSC 2009/0131, [2010] STI 3074, [2010] 1 WLR 2793, [2011] BCC 1, [2011] 1 All ER 430, [2011] Bus LR 111
Bailii, SC Summary, SC, Bailii Summary
Insolvency Act 1986 212
England and Wales
Citing:
At First InstanceHM Revenue and Customs v Holland and Another ChD 24-Jun-2008
The Revenue sought to recover from the defendant substantial sums in respect of allegedly unlawful dividends paid from an insolvent company. They said that the defendant and his wife were de facto directors.
Held: Claims agains the second . .
Appeal fromHolland v Revenue and Customs and Another CA 2-Jul-2009
The appellant supported IT workers. Through his own company, he set up companies in which his company was a director, and which companies in turn employed the IT workers securing substantial savings in higher rate Corporation Tax.
Held: The . .
CitedSalomon v A Salomon and Company Ltd HL 16-Nov-1896
A Company and its Directors are not same paersons
Mr Salomon had incorporated his long standing personal business of shoe manufacture into a limited company. He held nearly all the shares, and had received debentures on the transfer into the company of his former business. The business failed, and . .
CitedIn re Lo-Line Electric Motors Ltd 1988
When considering the filing of additional evidence changing allegations made under the 1986 Act, the paramount requirement is that the director facing disqualification must know the charge he has to meet. As to the standard of misbehaviour required . .
CitedRe Kaytech International plc; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Kaczer and others CA 1999
Robert Walker LJ said that the expression ‘de facto director’ had been in use for a long time, and commented on the failure to distinguish in pleadings between pleas that someone was a shadow or a de facto director. The two different labels were not . .
CitedRe Canadian Land Reclaiming and Colonizing Co CA 1880
The court was asked whether two individuals who had been appointed and acted as directors while they were ineligible were directors or other officers liable to a summons for misfeasance.
Held: The test was was whether a man who had assumed a . .
CitedIn re Hydrodam (Corby) Limited ChD 1994
ET plc wholly owned MCP Ltd which wholly owned Landsaver MCP Limited, which wholly owned Hydrodam (Corby) Limited (‘HCL’). The only de jure directors of HCL were two Channel Island companies. HCL went into compulsory liquidation and its liquidator . .
CitedRe County Marine Insurance Co (Rance’s Case) 1870
The directors of an insurance company had declared a bonus by means of a an account of receipts which failed to deal properly with the risks underwritten. They then sought to have the company wound up voluntarily.
Held: The Directors could be . .
CitedRe Exchange Banking Co, Flitcroft’s Case CA 1882
For several years, the company had paid dividends drawn against false accounts, and paid them to the directirs as shareholders. When in insolvent liquidation, the copany sued thosee directors for the return of all the dividends wrongly paid out.
CitedRe Lands Allotment Company CA 1894
A limited company is not a trustee of its funds, but their beneficial owner. However, the fiduciary character of the duties of its directors mean that they are treated as if they were trustees of those funds of the company which are in their hands . .
CitedIn re Kingston Cotton Mill (No 2) ChD 1895
The power to order a director to repay a company’s funds lost as a result of ‘misfeasance’ does not apply to conduct engaged in honestly and reasonably.
Vaughan Williams J disused the general principle the directors will be liable to restore . .
CitedSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Hall and Nuttall ChD 28-Jul-2006
The Secretary sought disqualification of the defendants. The second defendant had not been a director of the company, but director of another company which in turn held a directorship in the defaulting company.
Held: The claim failed: ‘i) As I . .
CitedRe Loquitur Ltd ChD 2003
. .
CitedBelmont Finance Corporation Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2) 1980
It had been alleged that there had been a conspiracy involving the company giving unlawful financial assistance for the purchase of its own shares.
Held: Dishonesty is not a necessary ingredient of liability in an allegation of a ‘knowing . .
CitedDovey and The Metropolitan Bank (of England and Wales), Limited v Cory HL 1901
In fulfilling this personal fiduciary responsibility, a director is entitled to rely upon the judgment, information and advice of a fellow director whose integrity skill and competence he has no reason to suspect.
Earl of Halsbury LC said ‘The . .
CitedSelangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (No 3) ChD 1968
The expressions ‘constructive trust’ and ‘constructive trustee’ are ‘nothing more than a formula for equitable relief. It is the actual control of assets belonging beneficially to a company which causes the law to treat directors as analogous to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Corporation Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.426472

Swain and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Aug 2014

FTTTx Income Tax – Corporation Tax on capital gains – Whether a claim to add 60,000 pounds as enhancement expenditure to the deductible costs of some let real properties was valid, so occasioning a loss rather than a gain on a part disposal of the properties – Whether there was private use of two company cars available to and utilised by one or both of the directors of the company – whether the capital gains return was fraudulent, and the absence of any disclosures in relation to the asserted car benefits were at the very least negligent – whether penalties were justified and whether they should be adjusted – Appeals substantially disallowed, but allowed in respect of one car

[2014] UKFTT 778 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Corporation Tax

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.535984

Revenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd: SC 15 Dec 2010

The taxpayer had entered into a ‘repo’ loan to its bank, agreeing to purchase a block of gilt edged securities, and to resell them at a later date at a fixed figure. The profit and figures included an allowance for the interest payments to be made. The company now appealed against being refused permission to set off the interest against trading losses. The 1988 Act deemed that the parties respective profit and loss accounts were to be deemed to include the respective income payments and were taxable accordingly.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal failed. The purpose of the deemed payment of pounds 2.9m manufactured interest by DCC being to cancel out that receipt and to allow it to be taxed as income in the hands of the Bank, the debit for that payment was equally pounds 2.9m. The 1996 Act had introduced a substantial change. Interest was now to be computed in accordance with some authorised accounting method. The parties here had used the accruals basis. It was proper to expect that, in making this change, Parliament had intended to preserve the essential arrangements of the existing provisions. A deeming provision in a tax statute should be read no more widely than was warranted.

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke
[2010] UKSC 58, [2010] WLR (D) 333, [2011] 1 WLR 44, [2011] BTC 13, UKSC 2009/0223, [2011] STI 133, [2011] STC 326, [2011] 1 All ER 537
Bailii, WLRD, SC Summ, SC, Bailii Summary
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 730A 737A, Finance Act 1996 84(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWigmore v Thomas Summerson and Sons Ltd 1926
The Revenue was unable to charge to income tax a holder of gilts who, by a well-timed sale just before payment of a half-yearly instalment of interest, in effect turned his accrued income into a capital gain. Rowlatt J said that: ‘The result is that . .
CitedLeigh v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 1928
For income tax purposes, interest is only derived, or arises, when it is actually or constructively received or credited. Rowlatt J said: ‘Before a good debt is paid there is no such thing as income tax upon it. The meaning of the section must be . .
CitedDewar v Commissioners for Inland Revenue CA 1935
The executor had been left a legacy of andpound;1,000,000 free of duty. When it came due to be paid, he was entitled to interest at 4%, but did not claim the interest. He was assessed to surtax on the sum he could have received.
Held: Since he . .
CitedSchaffer v Cattermole 1980
A purchaser of short-dated gilts pregnant with interest would not be to escape liability to tax on the whole of the interest payment, even if he had paid an extra sum expressed to be for the accrued interest. . .
Appeal fromRevenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd CA 10-Nov-2009
The company had entered into an agreement to purchase gilts, and at the same time to resell them at a future date for a fixed sum. In effect they provided a loan against the gilts. It sought to offset the profit against its trading losses.
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Metrolands (Property Finance) Ltd 1981
Nourse J said: ‘When considering the extent to which a deeming provision should be applied, the court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purposes and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to. It will not always be . .
At Special CommissionersDCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SCIT 8-May-2007
Gilt repo – purchase and resale of gilts – interest paid to interim holder not required to be paid to original holder but recognised in repurchase price – application of paragraph 15 Schedule 9 FA 96 – related transaction – effect of section 737A to . .
In ChanceryDCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 17-Oct-2008
The court considered the taxation of ‘repo’ transactions. The revenue had charged to tax, an element of interest paid on a block og gilts purchased by the taxpayer company under a resale agreement at a price which allowed for the interest payments . .
CitedMarshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr CA 7-Apr-1993
A variation of trusts in Jersey will be deemed to have been made by the deceased – no Capital Gains Tax arising. Interpretation of deeming Provisions. The taxpayer was not a settlor in an overseas trust. Deeming provisions should not generally be . .
CitedMarshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr HL 30-Jun-1994
A settlor by will was deemed to have had an interest as funds were passed to a Jersey Trust. The section merely made or allowed that a variation of a will would not be a taxable event in UK law. It had no other effects. A deed of family arrangement . .
CitedJenks v Dickinson (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 16-Jun-1997
Legislation which created a clear anomaly can be interpreted so as to avoid the anomaly if the words used are sufficiently ambiguous as to allow an alternative construction.
Neuberger J discussed the case of Marshall v Kerr, saying: ‘It appears . .

Cited by:
CitedFowler v Revenue and Customs SC 20-May-2020
The taxpayer, a diver resident in South Africa had undertaken engagements within UK waters and now disputed his liability to Income Tax using a deeming provision in section 5 of the 2005 Act being self employed.
Held: HMRC’s appeal succeeded. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.427166

Greenbank Holidays Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Mar 2010

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – Intangible fixed assets – Goodwill – Chargeability of gains and losses – Commencement of new statutory code – Application of the code and goodwill created or acquired after commencement – Taxpayer company purchased business and internally-generated goodwill from associated company after commencement date of code – Taxpayer company recognised goodwill element as purchased goodwill in its accounts – Whether goodwill created by taxpayer company after commencement of code – No – Appeal dismissed – FA 2002 Sch 29 para 118(1)(a).

[2010] UKFTT 109 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.408959

The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Dec 2011

Corporation tax – joint referral – FA 1998, Sch 18, para 31A – group relief – consortium – surrendering company indirectly partly owned by Luxembourg company – condition that ‘link company’ must be UK resident or carry on a trade in the UK through a permanent establishment – s 402(3), (3A) and (3B) ICTA 1988 – whether requirement an infringement of EU law that can be relied upon by claimant companies – questions referred to CJEU – whether that requirement cannot be applied against claimant companies by virtue of the non-discrimination article of the UK-Luxembourg double tax convention – whether group relief precluded by s 410 ICTA

Roger Berner, Sir Stephen Oliver QC TJJ
[2011] UKFTT 838 (TC), 14 ITL Rep 394, [2012] STI 285, [2012] SFTD 366
Bailii
Finance Act 1998, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 402(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
ReferenceFelixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd v The Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue And Customs ECJ 24-Oct-2013
ECJ Opinion – Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Corporation tax – Tax relief – Consortium claim for group relief (consortium relief) – National legislation . .
ReferenceFelixstowe Dock And Railway Company Ltd v The Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue And Customs ECJ 1-Apr-2014
Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment – Corporation tax – Tax relief – Groups of companies and consortia – National legislation permitting losses to be transferred between a company belonging to a consortium and a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, European

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.450901

Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (HM Inspector of Taxes): HL 25 Nov 2004

The company had paid substantial sums out in establishing a gas pipeline, and claimed those sums against its tax as capital allowances. The transaction involved a sale and leaseback arrangement which the special commissioners had found to be a pre-arranged series created only for a tax advantage, and the judge at first instance agreed saying there had been no up-front finance such as would be usual. The Court of Appeal allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, and the revenue now appealed.
Held: The statutory requirements are in the case of a finance lease concerned entirely with the acts and purposes of the lessor. The arrangements made satisfied the statutory requirements, and the appeal was dismissed.
The House described the general form of tax evasion attempts: ‘structuring transactions in a form which will have the same or nearly the same economic effect as a taxable transaction but which it is hoped will fall outside the terms of the taxing statute. It is characteristic of these composite transactions that they will include elements which have been inserted without any business or commercial purpose but are intended to have the effect of removing the transaction from the scope of the charge.’
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead removed the interpretation of taxing statutes from its literalist enclave and incorporated it into the modern approach to statutory interpretation which the court otherwise adopts: ‘The essence of the new approach was to give the statutory provision a purposive construction in order to determine the nature of the transaction to which it was intended to apply and then to decide whether the actual transaction (which might involve considering the overall effect of a number of elements intended to operate together) answered to the statutory description. . . [T]he question is always whether the relevant provision of the statute, upon its true construction, applies to the facts as found. As Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said in MacNiven v Westmoreland Investments Ltd [2003] 1 AC 311, 320, para 8: ‘The paramount question always is one of interpretation of the particular statutory provision and its application to the facts of the case’.’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
[2004] UKHL 51, [2004] 76 TC 446, [2005] 1 All ER 97, [2005] 1 AC 684, [2005] STC 1, [2004] 3 WLR 1383, [2004] BTC 414, 76 TC 446, [2004] STI 2435, 7 ITL Rep 383, [2004] UKHL TC – 76 – 446
Bailii, House of Lords, Bailii
Capital Allowances Act 1990 24(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBarclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson, HM Inspector of Taxes CA 13-Dec-2002
The taxpayer entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement in respect of a gas pipeline, and sought to set off the costs as a capital allowance.
Held: The company’s appeal succeeded: ‘There is nothing in the statute to suggest that ‘up-front . .
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 . .
CitedCommissioners of Inland Revenue v McGuckian HL 21-May-1997
Steps which had been inserted into a commercial transaction, but which had no purpose other than the saving of tax are to be disregarded when assessing the tax effect of the scheme. The modern approach to statutory construction is to have regard to . .
CitedInland Revenue v Burmah Oil Co Ltd HL 1982
A series of circular payments which left the taxpayer company in exactly the same financial position as before was not regarded as giving rise to a ‘loss’ within the meaning of the legislation. The ratio of the Ramsay decision was that a loss which . .
CitedCarreras Group Limited v The Stamp Commissioner PC 1-Apr-2004
PC (Jamaica) The transfer of shares in exchange for a debenture with a view to its redemption a fortnight later was not regarded as an exempt transfer in exchange for the debenture but rather as an exchange for . .
CitedMacNiven (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 . .
CitedFurniss (Inspector of Taxes) v Dawson HL 9-Feb-1983
The transfer of shares to a subsidiary as part of a planned scheme immediately to transfer them to an outside purchaser was regarded as a taxable disposition to the outside purchaser rather than an exempt transfer to a group company. In defined . .
CitedCollector of Stamp Revenue v Arrowtown Assets Ltd 4-Dec-2003
(Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal) The court was asked as to the accounting treatment of interests incurred in the development for the purpose of generating the profits, and therefore whether the relevant Ordinance prohibited the capitalisation of . .
CitedCampbell v Inland Revenue Commissioners SCIT 6-Jul-2004
SCIT INCOME TAX – Anti-Avoidance – Relevant discounted security – Loss on gift to wife – Subscription for security and gift part of scheme to produce loss – Avoidance not the Appellant’s sole purpose in . .
At first instanceBarclays 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 . .

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 . .
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 . .
CitedAnnabel’s (Berkeley Square) Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs CA 7-May-2009
The court considered whether tips paid at a restaurant by means of a credit card or cheque thus becoming the employer’s money could properly count toward the minimum wage when paid on to the employee. The revenue contended that the money received . .
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 . .
CitedRFC 2012 Plc (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) v Advocate General for Scotland SC 5-Jul-2017
The Court was asked whether an employee’s remuneration is taxable as his or her emoluments or earnings when it is paid to a third party in circumstances in which the employee had no prior entitlement to receive it himself or herself.
Held: The . .
CitedProject Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The purchaser of land created a sub-sale and leaseback with bank so as to fund the purchase in a manner which would comply with Islamic finance principles. The Court was now asked whether purchaser or the bank were liable for stamp duty land tax on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.219868

Revenue 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 the alternative contended for by HMRC. I would hold that the question for inquiry is whether the claimant company has been able to show, on the basis of the circumstances known at the date when it makes its claim, that there has been no possibility of the losses in question being utilised in the Member State of the surrendering company in any accounting period prior to the date of the claim and no possibility of such utilisation in the accounting period in which the claim is made or in any future accounting periods. The consequence of this finding is that the third issue does not need to be answered. ‘
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath
[2013] UKSC 30, [2013] WLR(D) 191, [2013] STI 1899, [2013] 3 All ER 835, [2013] BTC 162, [2013] 1 WLR 1586, [2013] STC 1262, [2013] 3 CMLR 36, UKSC 2011/0241
Bailii, WLRD, SC Summary, SC
Finance Act 1998 Sch 18
England and Wales
Citing:
At UTTCMarks 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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedA Oy ECJ 21-Feb-2013
ECJ Freedom of establishment – Article 49 TFEU – Tax legislation – Merger of a parent company established in one Member State with a subsidiary established in another Member State – Deductibility by the parent . .
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 (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 . .
CitedOy Aa (Freedom of Establishment) ECJ 18-Jul-2007
ECJ Freedom of establishment – Corporate tax legislation – Ability of a company to deduct sums paid by way of intra-group transfer – Obligation on the transferee company also to have its establishment in the . .
CitedLidl 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 . .

Cited by:
See AlsoRevenue 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 October 2021; Ref: scu.510005

Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 May 2010

CORPORATION TAX – Trading profits – Moneys mistakenly paid to trader – Appellant supply recruitment services to customers – Customers make payments by mistake – unclaimed amounts transferred to balance sheet account and released to profit and loss account at financial year end – whether mistaken payments constitute trading receipts accruing or arising from trade for tax purposes – Yes
[2010] UKFTT 218 (TC), [2010] SFTD 882, [2010] STI 2281
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.422238

HSP Financial Planning Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Feb 2011

CORPORATION TAX – Amortisation of goodwill – Goodwill of partnership acquired by Appellant for consideration including issue of shares to partners – Whether partners became related parties ‘at the same time’ as Appellant acquired goodwill – Yes – FA 2002 Sch 29 para 118(1)(b) – Appeal dismissed
[2011] UKFTT 106 (TC), [2011] STI 1623, [2011] SFTD 436
Bailii

Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.442872

Vocalspruce Ltd v HMRC: UTTC 19 Jun 2013

UTTC Corporation Tax- whether the profit on loan notes is subject to the charge to corporation tax under the loan relationship rules. Construction of s. 84(2)(a) of and paragraph 12 of Schedule 9 to the Finance Act 1996. Profits realised on loan notes which the company had agreed to appropriate to share premium account on the issue of shares for the loan notes were not amounts required to be transferred to its share premium account within the meaning of s. 84(2)(a); the profit appropriated to share premium account was not excluded from the scope of s. 84(2)(a) by paragraph 12 of Schedule 9. Appeal and Cross-appeal dismissed.
Proudman J
[2013] UKUT 276 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.513615

Shinelock Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 7 Sep 2021

CORPORATION TAX – capital gain realised on sale of property – whether payment to director/former shareholder who was controlling party was deductible – jurisdiction in circumstances where no claim made to use loan relationship deficit before issue of closure notice or expiry of two year time limit – whether payment was a distribution – whether amount deductible as expense or loss from non-trading loan relationship – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 320 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.667936

Boyer Allan Investment Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Aug 2012

FTTTx Corporation tax – discovery assessment – whether invalid – Appellant made contributions to an employee benefit trust (EBT) – following Dextra, FA 1989, s 43(11) applies – FA 1989, Sch 18, para 45 – whether the Appellant’s company tax return for the year ended 30 April 2000 was in fact made on the basis or in accordance with the practice generally prevailing when it was made
[2012] UKFTT 558 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.466073

West Burton Property Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Deferred Revenue Expenditure): FTTTx 18 May 2021

Deferred revenue expenditure had been incurred in the course of carrying on a property business and formed part of the cost of the property in the Appellant’s accounts – on the sale of the property, the difference between the sale proceeds and the cost of the asset (in this case, nil because the two amounts were the same) was required by generally-accepted accounting practice to be accounted for in the Appellant’s profit and loss account – did that accounting treatment mean that the deferred revenue expenditure had not been brought into account as a debit in calculating the Appellant’s accounting profits in the financial year in which the sale occurred? – no – even if the deferred revenue expenditure had been so brought into account, should relief for the deferred revenue expenditure be denied on the basis that the sale did not take place in the course of the property business because it gave rise solely to a capital receipt? – no – appeal allowed in principle
[2021] UKFTT 160 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 October 2021; Ref: scu.663739

Revenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd: CA 10 Nov 2009

The company had entered into an agreement to purchase gilts, and at the same time to resell them at a future date for a fixed sum. In effect they provided a loan against the gilts. It sought to offset the profit against its trading losses.
Held: (Rimer LJ dissenting) The Revenue’s appeal succeeded.
Rix, Moses, Rimer LLJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1165, [2010] STC 80, [2009] BTC 724, [2009] STI 2933
Bailii
Finance Act 1996 84(1), Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 730A 737A
England and Wales
Citing:
At Special CommissionersDCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SCIT 8-May-2007
Gilt repo – purchase and resale of gilts – interest paid to interim holder not required to be paid to original holder but recognised in repurchase price – application of paragraph 15 Schedule 9 FA 96 – related transaction – effect of section 737A to . .
Appeal fromDCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 17-Oct-2008
The court considered the taxation of ‘repo’ transactions. The revenue had charged to tax, an element of interest paid on a block og gilts purchased by the taxpayer company under a resale agreement at a price which allowed for the interest payments . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRevenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd SC 15-Dec-2010
The taxpayer had entered into a ‘repo’ loan to its bank, agreeing to purchase a block of gilt edged securities, and to resell them at a later date at a fixed figure. The profit and figures included an allowance for the interest payments to be made. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.377828

DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: ChD 17 Oct 2008

The court considered the taxation of ‘repo’ transactions. The revenue had charged to tax, an element of interest paid on a block og gilts purchased by the taxpayer company under a resale agreement at a price which allowed for the interest payments to be made.
Held: The revenue’s appeal succeeded.
Norris J
[2008] EWHC 2429 (Ch), [2009] STC 77, [2008] STI 2319, [2008] BTC 755
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 730A, Finance Act 1996 84(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromDCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SCIT 8-May-2007
Gilt repo – purchase and resale of gilts – interest paid to interim holder not required to be paid to original holder but recognised in repurchase price – application of paragraph 15 Schedule 9 FA 96 – related transaction – effect of section 737A to . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRevenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd CA 10-Nov-2009
The company had entered into an agreement to purchase gilts, and at the same time to resell them at a future date for a fixed sum. In effect they provided a loan against the gilts. It sought to offset the profit against its trading losses.
In ChanceryRevenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd SC 15-Dec-2010
The taxpayer had entered into a ‘repo’ loan to its bank, agreeing to purchase a block of gilt edged securities, and to resell them at a later date at a fixed figure. The profit and figures included an allowance for the interest payments to be made. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.277023

Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 9 Oct 2019

CORPORATION TAX – UK branches of Irish banks – interest expense – whether deductible – attribution of notional capital – ICTA section 11AA(3)(b) – construction and application of UK – Ireland DTC.
[2019] UKUT 277 (TCC), [2019] STI 1684, 22 ITL Rep 224, [2019] STC 2286
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from UTTCIrish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 28-Aug-2020
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.643795

Aozora Gmac Investments Limited v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Interest Paid By Us Subsidiary To UK Parent Company): FTTTx 12 Apr 2021

CORPORATION TAX – interest paid by US subsidiary to UK parent company – interest subject to deduction of US withholding tax – no entitlement to benefit of relief under US/UK tax treaty – is unilateral credit for US withholding tax available – s793A(3) ICTA 1988
[2021] UKFTT 99 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.663674

RKW Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Jan 2014

Corporation tax – deemed charge under s419 ICTA 1988 on loan to participator – investment in close company – shareholder agreement – subscription for shares payable by instalments – instalments not paid – whether loan to participator – no – Appeal allowed
[2014] UKFTT 151 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 13 October 2021; Ref: scu.521741

Memec Plc v Inland Revenue Commissioners: ChD 7 Nov 1996

Double taxation relief was not available for a distribution by a German company to its UK partner.
An international treaty should be construed in a manner which is ‘international, not exclusively English’.
Robert Walker J
Times 07-Nov-1996, [1996] STC 1336
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromMemec Plc v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 9-Jun-1998
Memec plc, was a partner in a German silent partnership (stille Gesellschaft). The partnership had no separate legal personality, but was a contractual arrangement under which Plc had the right to receive a share of the profits of the business . .
CitedAnson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 October 2021; Ref: scu.83622

Kwik-Fit Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Loan Relationships): FTTTx 11 Aug 2021

CORPORATION TAX – loan relationships – unallowable purpose test – intra-group reorganisation enabled acceleration of use of non-trading loan relationship deficit – Appellants agreed to increase rate of interest on loans – whether Appellants were party to loan relationships for an unallowable purpose – held yes – consideration of amount of debit attributable to that unallowable purpose on a just and reasonable basis – appeal allowed in part
[2021] UKFTT 283 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 13 October 2021; Ref: scu.667914

John Lewis Properties Plc v Inland Revenue: SCIT 5 Sep 2000

CORPORATION TAX – Property holding company part of a larger group of companies letting its properties to the trading company of the same group – Assignment by the property company to a bank of the right to receive its rents for a five year period in consideration of a lump sum payment received from the bank – Whether the lump sum is to be treated and taxed as an income receipt or as a capital receipt – Whether the assignment of the rents by the property holding company was a part disposal of its properties or an entire disposal of five years’ rents – Whether roll over relief is available to the property holding company – Sections 15 and 18 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988; sections 21, 42, 152 and 155 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 – Appeal allowed
[2000] UKSC SPC00255
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.195358

Aozora GMAC Investment Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Interest Paid By US Subsidiary To UK Parent Company): FTTTx 12 Apr 2021

Interest paid by US subsidiary to UK parent company – interest subject to deduction of US withholding tax – no entitlement to benefit of relief under US/UK tax treaty – is unilateral credit for US withholding tax available – s793A(3) ICTA 1988
[2021] UKFTT 222 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 September 2021; Ref: scu.663673

Fashion On The Block v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Sep 2021

Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme – EIS1 used in error, whether that represented a prior risk capital investment, purposive construction of the SEIS legislation and realistic view of the facts- no prior risk capital investment, whether unilateral mistake and whether rectification possible, yes – appeal allowed
[2021] UKFTT 306 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 September 2021; Ref: scu.667931

Briggs (Henry) Son and Co Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) v Inland Revenue: HL 21 Dec 1960

Profits Tax – Computation of profits – Dividends received from subsidiary company-Whether profits arising from trade or business carried on by principal company-Whether dividends franked investment income – Finance Act, 1937 (1 Edw. VIII and 1 Geo. VI, c. 54), Section 19 and Fourth Schedule, Paragraph 7.
[1960] UKHL TC – 39 – 410
Bailii
Finance Act, 1937 19
England and Wales

Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.559970