Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Secan Ltd (2000) 74 TC 1
2000

Miller LJ
Commonwealth, Corporation Tax
(Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong) The taxpayer company borrowed money to buy some land and build a block of flats. Construction took three years, during which no sales took place. The company's accounts submitted to the revenue for those years treated interest on the borrowed money as carried forward to be added to the cost of the flats and, there being no sales against which any costs could be set off, showed neither a profit nor a loss. The company then changed its mind and claimed that its accounts had been drawn up on a false basis. Section 16 of the Hong Kong Inland Revenue Ordinance provides that in ascertaining the assessable profits for any year of assessment, "there shall be deducted all outgoings and expenses to the extent to which they are incurred during the basis period for that year of assessment . . including . . interest." The taxpayer argued that the carrying forward of any outgoings and expenses is prohibited and all such outgoings should have been deducted in the year in which they were incurred. The claim was to rewrite the accounts to show that the interest payments gave rise to a substantial loss in each year. Held: Section 16 did not prohibit the capitalisation of interest, but there had been a deduction for interest in each of the first three years but that it had been set off against an increase in the value of the stock. The fact that the profit and loss account showed neither of these items was "merely a matter of presentation".
1 Citers


 
Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex Parte Newfields Developments Ltd Times, 15 February 2000
15 Feb 2000
CA

Corporation Tax, Company
The test in the section, provided the conclusive test to establish who had control of a company. The commissioners had no discretion as to how or when to apply the criteria. The first part listed several ways in which the identity and number of people with control was to be calculated, and the second limb was to be used to choose between them.
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 416 (6), 13
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Tapemaze Ltd v Melluish (Inspector of Taxes) Gazette, 24 February 2000; Times, 15 March 2000
24 Feb 2000
ChD

Corporation Tax
The company hired out cars, receiving advance payments. Such payments in respect of future accounting periods were brought forward as accruals. On the company's sale the company was relieved of its obligations, but kept the accruals, and were charged to corporation tax on them as profits. For tax purposes the character of a payment was not necessarily judged once and for all when received. The accruals were properly treated as trade income for the period after the sale.
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 18(1)(a)(ii)


 
 Walker (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) v Centaur Clothes Group Limited; HL 16-Mar-2000 - Times, 07 April 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 799; [2000] UKHL 23; [2000] 2 All ER 589
 
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Kahn and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 86
23 Mar 2000
CA

Corporation Tax, Insolvency
Appeal against an order of Mr Justice Evans-Lombe on an application made pursuant to section 112(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 by the joint liquidators of Toshoku Finance UK Plc ("the Company") for directions in relation to the discharge of an alleged liability to corporation tax on interest receivable after the commencement of the winding up.
Insolvency Act 1986 112(1)
[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re Toshoko Finance Uk Plc; CA 29-Mar-2000 - Times, 29 March 2000; Gazette, 14 April 2000
 
Thompson (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart Times, 24 April 2000
24 Apr 2000
ChD

Income Tax, Corporation Tax
The system of tax relief called the business expansion scheme did not apply when land was given in exchange for shares in the qualifying company. The scheme gave relief for efforts in raising money. That could not be satisfied by property given in money's worth.
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 289


 
 Bibby (Inspector of Taxes) v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd; Oakes (Inspector of Taxes) v Equitable Life Assurance Society; ChD 17-May-2000 - Times, 17 May 2000; Gazette, 31 May 2000
 
Carr (Inspector of Taxes) v Armpledge Ltd; Same v Fielden and Ashworth Ltd Times, 24 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 156
24 May 2000
CA

Corporation Tax
Where a company sought to claim reliefs going back over different tax years, there was no rule requiring such reliefs to be claimed chronologically, but the company could arrange the claims against the several tax years as they best thought fit. There was no express power to order them, but the test was the absence of any law requiring a particular order to be used. The section dealt with only one claim, and said nothing about how two claims should be ordered.
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 239(3)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Staatssecretaris van Financien v Verkooijen C-35/98; [2002] ECR I-4071; [2002] STC 654; [2000] EUECJ C-35/98
6 Jun 2000
ECJ

European, Corporation Tax
A resident of the Netherlands owned shares in a company resident in Belgium and received dividends on those shares. If the dividends had been paid by a company resident in the Netherlands their treatment for income tax in his hands would have been more beneficial, because a limited exemption from income tax applied to dividends paid by Dutch companies. The first question for the court was whether the availability of this exemption only in relation to dividends paid by Dutch companies was inconsistent with Article 1 of the 1988 Directive. The Court held that the acquisition of shares in an undertaking was a capital movement within the scope of the Directive, that the receipt of dividends on such shares presupposed participation in the undertaking, and that therefore the receipt by a resident of one Member State of dividends on shares in a company resident in another Member State was within the Directive. It then held that the refusal of the first Member State to extend to such dividends an exemption from tax which applied in relation to dividends on shares in companies resident in the first Member State had the effect of dissuading nationals of the first Member State from investing their capital in companies established in other Member States and, conversely, presented an obstacle to such companies from raising capital from residents of the first Member State. Accordingly, such a provision constituted a restriction on the movement of capital prohibited by Article 1 of the Directive.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Banque Internationale a Luxembourg Sa Gazette, 06 July 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 360
23 Jun 2000
Admn

Corporation Tax, Human Rights, Banking
The commissioners obtained court orders directing the applicant bank to disclose confidential information in their possession. The bank resisted on the ground that the demand breached their rights to confidentiality and to privacy. Although the orders did infringe the Bank's article 8 rights, the notices were valid because the interference was justified under article 8(2). The notices were served in accordance with law, and were justified in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary in a democratic system for protecting the taxation system.
European Convention on Human Rights 8 - Taxes Management Act 1970 - Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Banque Internationale A Luxembourg Sa Times, 27 July 2000
27 Jul 2000
QBD

Corporation Tax, Human Rights
The commissioners obtained court orders directing the applicant bank to disclose confidential information in their possession. The bank resisted on the ground that the demand breached their rights to confidentiality and to privacy. Although the orders did infringe the Bank's article 8 rights, the notices were valid because the interference was justified under article 8(2). The notices were served in accordance with law, and were justified in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary in a democratic system for protecting the taxation system.
European Convention on Human Rights 8 - Taxes Management Act 1970 - Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

 
Manufacturers Life Assurance Company v Cummins (Inspector of Taxes) Times, 22 November 2000
22 Nov 2000
ChD

Corporation Tax
The tax exemption attracted to interest on some government securities in favour of foreign residents was lost by a foreign resident company when it carried on a long term life assurance business here on a mutual basis through an office here. The interest was taxable under Schedule C. The business profits restriction in the Act was the income minus expenditure basis. The business described was a trade.
Finance Act 1940 60

 
Eagerpath Ltd v Edwards (HM Inspector of Taxes) Times, 23 January 2001; Gazette, 01 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 327; [2000] EWCA Civ 328
14 Dec 2000
CA

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management
Where the special commissioner had determined that the dispute had been concluded by agreement, the taxpayer was precluded from appealing that decision claiming an "error or mistke" That issue was not one relating to the computation of profits in such a way as to bring the matter within the exception to the section.
Taxes Management Act 1970 54 33
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.