swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Corporation Tax - From: 1998 To: 1998
This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Prudential Assurance Company Limited v David Alfred Johnson (Hm Inspector of Taxes) Times, 24 February 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 244
13 Feb 1998
CA
Corporation Tax
Life company's management expenses were allowable against income under Sch D Case 1, but not allowable on income minus expenses basis.
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 75 76
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Bestway (Holdings) Ltd v Luff (Inspector of Taxes); ChD 4-Mar-1998 - Times, 04 March 1998; Gazette, 01 April 1998; (1998) 70 TC 512; [1998] STC 357
Dunlop International Ag v Pardoe (Inspector of Taxes) Times, 16 March 1998
16 Mar 1998
ChD
Corporation Tax
When principal in group of companies relocated abroad, inter-group transfer of shares resulting was chargeable to corporation tax.
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 278
Jowett (Inspector of Taxes) v O'Neill and Brennan Construction Ltd; ChD 25-Mar-1998 - Times, 25 March 1998; [1998] STC 482
Girvan (Inspector of Taxes) v Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd; ChD 3-Apr-1998 - Gazette, 20 May 1998; Times, 22 April 1998; [1998] 70 TC 682; [1998] STC 567
Memec Plc v Commissioners of Inland Revenue Times, 01 July 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 941; [1998] STC 754; 1 ITL Rep 3; 71 TC 77; [1998] BTC 251
9 Jun 1998
CA
Peter Gibson, Henry LJJ, Sir Peter Staughton
Corporation Tax
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.
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Part XVIII
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Walker (Inspector of Taxes) v Centaur Clothes Group Ltd Gazette, 09 September 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1098
25 Jun 1998
CA
Corporation Tax
After the transfer of a business to a subsidiary with payment left outstanding and no provision for interest but receiving dividends, it was not able to recover Advance Corporation Tax on that payment since it was no longer trading and had no income source.
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 239
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Imperial Chemical Industries v Colmer Times, 20 August 1998; C-264/96; [1999] 1 WLR 108; [1998] ECR I-4695; [1998] STC 874; [1998] EUECJ C-264/96
16 Jul 1998
ECJ
European, Corporation Tax
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 outside EU. United Kingdom legislation restricting fiscal reliefs or advantages to cases where the relevant companies are resident in the United Kingdom may be inconsistent with the EC Treaty. ICI remained bound by domestic legislation upon its ordinary meaning notwithstanding that in certain circumstances such a construction would be incompatible with European Community rights.
Europa In the context of the preliminary ruling procedure under Article 177, it is solely for the national courts before which proceedings are pending, and which must assume responsibility for the judgment to be given, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of each case both the need for a preliminary ruling to enable them to give judgment and the relevance of the questions which they submit to the Court. A request for a preliminary ruling from a national court may be rejected only if it is manifest that the interpretation of Community law or the examination of the validity of a rule of Community law sought by that court bears no relation to the true facts or the subject-matter of the main proceedings.
Article 52 of the Treaty precludes legislation of a Member State which, in the case of companies established in that State belonging to a consortium through which they control a holding company, by means of which they exercise their right to freedom of establishment in order to set up subsidiaries in other Member States, makes a particular form of tax relief subject to the requirement that the holding company's business consist wholly or mainly in the holding of shares in subsidiaries that are established in the Member State concerned.
Such legislation, which makes a tax advantage in the form of consortium relief available solely to companies which control, wholly or mainly, subsidiaries whose seat is in the national territory, applies the test of the subsidiaries' seat to establish differential tax treatment of consortium companies established in that Member State and is not justified in terms of a need to ensure the cohesion of the national tax system arising from the fact that the revenue lost through the granting of tax relief on losses incurred by resident subsidiaries cannot be offset by taxing the profits of non-resident subsidiaries, since there is no direct link between the consortium relief granted for losses incurred by a resident subsidiary and the taxation of profits made by non-resident subsidiaries.
When deciding an issue concerning a situation which lies outside the scope of Community law, the national court is not required, under Community law, either to interpret its legislation in a way conforming with Community law or to disapply that legislation. Where a particular provision must be disapplied in a situation covered by Community law, but that same provision could remain applicable to a situation not so covered, it is for the competent body of the State concerned to remove that legal uncertainty in so far as it might affect rights deriving from Community rules.
EC Treaty 52
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Sarsfield (Inspector of Taxes) v Dixons Group Plc and Related Appeals Times, 20 July 1998
20 Jul 1998
CA
Corporation Tax
Warehouse used purely for distribution of goods for retailer did not qualify for initial or writing down allowances since the use, although industrial, was not ancillary to the use as a retail shop.
Capital Allowances Act 1968 1 and 2
Carr (Inspector of Taxes) v Armpledge Ltd; Same v Fielden and Ashworth Ltd Times, 12 October 1998
12 Oct 1998
ChD
Corporation Tax
A company's settlement of its tax affairs had to be dealt with in chronological order even though it would be from it's point of view more tax efficient to have them dealt with in reverse order. No right of choice was given to a taxpayer.
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 239(3)
1 Citers
McNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd; CA 26-Oct-1998 - Times, 26 October 1998; Gazette, 18 November 1998; [2001] 2 WLR 377; [1998] EWCA Civ 1608
