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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 13 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.


 
 MacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd; HL 15-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 15 February 2001; Times, 14 February 2001; [2001] UKHL 6; [2001] 1 All ER 865; (2001) 73 TC 1; [2001] 2 WLR 377; [2003] 1 AC 311
 
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Laird Group Plc Times, 13 March 2001; Gazette, 20 April 2001
13 Mar 2001
ChD

Taxes Management, Corporation Tax
It was difficult to reconcile different decisions of the higher courts. Nevertheless, the declaration and payment of a dividend which did not involve any transaction in securities, or alteration of rights attaching to securities, was not itself a dealing in securities. The arrangement involved the declaration of abnormally large dividends in purchasing another company so as to create franked income which it could then set off against its own liability to tax at tax rates applicable to its group. If a payment operated to extinguish a security, it might become such a transaction, but in this case it had not.
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 706

 
Metallgesellschaft Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another Hoechst Ag and Another v Same Times, 20 March 2001; C-397/98; C-410/98; [2001] Ch 620; [2001] STC 452; [2001] EUECJ C-397/98; [2001] EUECJ C-410/98; [2001] ECR I-1727
20 Mar 2001
ECJ

European, Corporation Tax
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 contrary to Community law: '... it is contrary to Community law for a national court to refuse or reduce a claim brought before it by a resident subsidiary and its non-resident parent company for reimbursement or reparation of the financial loss which they have suffered as a consequence of the advance payment of corporation tax by the subsidiary, on the sole ground that they did not apply to the tax authorities in order to benefit for the taxation regime which would have exempted the subsidiary from making payments in advance and that they therefore did not make use of the legal remedies available to them to challenge the refusals of the tax authorities, by invoking the primacy and direct effect of the provisions of Community law, where upon any view national law denied resident subsidiaries and their non-resident parent companies the benefit of that taxation regime.'
Europa It is contrary to Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) for the tax legislation of a Member State to afford subsidiary companies resident in that Member State the possibility of benefiting from a taxation regime (group income election) allowing them to pay dividends to their parent company without having to pay advance corporation tax where their parent company is also resident in that Member State but to deny them that possibility where their parent company has its seat in another Member State.
Where a subsidiary resident in one Member State has been obliged to pay advance corporation tax in respect of dividends paid to its parent company having its seat in another Member State even though, in similar circumstances, the subsidiaries of parent companies resident in the first Member State were entitled to opt for a taxation regime that allowed them to avoid that obligation, Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) requires that resident subsidiaries and their non-resident parent companies should have an effective legal remedy in order to obtain reimbursement or reparation of the financial loss which they have sustained and from which the authorities of the Member State concerned have benefited as a result of the advance payment of tax by the subsidiaries.
The mere fact that the sole object of such an action is the payment of interest equivalent to the financial loss suffered as a result of the loss of use of the sums paid prematurely does not constitute a ground for dismissing such an action, for the award of interest represents the reimbursement of that which was improperly paid and would appear to be essential in restoring the equal treatment guaranteed by Article 52 of the Treaty.
While, in the absence of Community rules, it is for the domestic legal system of the Member State concerned to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for repayment of taxes levied in breach of Community law or for reparation of loss caused by breach of Community law, including ancillary questions such as the payment of interest, those rules must not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law.
Actions brought by individuals before the courts of a Member State for repayment of national taxes levied in breach of Community law or for reparation of the loss caused in breach of Community law are subject to national rules of procedure which may, in particular, require applicants to act with reasonable diligence in order to avoid loss or damage or to limit its extent.
It is, however, contrary to Community law for a national court to refuse or reduce a claim brought before it by a subsidiary resident in that Member State and its non-resident parent company for reimbursement or reparation of the financial loss which they have suffered as a consequence of the advance payment of corporation tax by the subsidiary, on the sole ground that they did not apply to the tax authorities in order to benefit from the taxation regime which would have exempted the subsidiary from making payments in advance and that they therefore did not make use of the legal remedies available to them to challenge the refusals of the tax authorities, by invoking the primacy and direct effect of the provisions of Community law, where upon any view national law denied resident subsidiaries and their non-resident parent companies the benefit of that taxation regime.
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 247
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Taylor (Inspector of Taxes) v MEPC Holdings Ltd; ChD 12-Jun-2001 - Times, 12 June 2001; [2002] STC 430
 
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v John Lewis Properties Ltd Times, 22 June 2001; Gazette, 05 July 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 409; [2002] 1 WLR 35; [2001] STC 1118; [2001] BTC 213; [2001] STI 937
13 Jun 2001
ChD
Lightman J
Capital Gains Tax, Landlord and Tenant, Corporation Tax
A group of companies took leases from a company within the group. That company, in turn factored the right to receive the rents for five years to another company in return for a capital payment representing the discounted value of the future rent receipts. It then claimed this as a capital rather than an income receipt, and was taxable accordingly. The Commissioners asserted that it remained income. Held: The appeal failed. The case fell to be decided by the common law of tax rather than statute law. The sale was of an asset not in the course of trade and, as such, and however reluctantly, had to be held to produce a capital receipt and taxed accordingly.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Newfields Developments Ltd; HL 21-Jun-2001 - Times, 08 June 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] STC 901; [2001] UKHL 27; [2001] 1 WLR 1111; [2001] UKHL TC_73_532; [2001] BTC 196; [2001] STI 851; [2001] 4 All ER 400; 73 TC 532
 
ABC Ltd v Inspector of Taxes [2001] UKSC SPC00300
20 Jul 2001
SCIT

Corporation Tax
SCIT CAPITAL ALLOWANCES – Purchase by a UK company of plant and machinery from XYZ, a non-UK corporation – Lease back by the company to XYZ – Sublease by XYZ to a subsidiary UK company – Various security arrangements entered into involving (inter alia) a Channel Islands company resulted in the whole of the purchase price for the pipeline paid by the company being deposited with that company with the result that the purchase price was not available to XYZ as vendor for immediate use – Claim by the purchaser UK company to writing down allowances in respect of its expenditure on the acquisition of the section of gas pipeline – Claim refused by the Inland Revenue – Capital Allowances Act 1990 section 24.
Capital Allowances Act 1990 24
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v The Crown Court at Kingston, Robin Wayne John Interested Party [2001] EWHC Admin 581
24 Jul 2001
QBD
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Stanley Burton
Corporation Tax, Taxes Management, Crime
The Crown Court dismissed charges again the interested party alleging conspiracy to defraud the claimants. Tax-saving crosses the border from lawful to criminal when it involves the deliberate and dishonest making of false statements to the Revenue. The Revenue contended that he had created documents to do that precise thing. Companies with cash assets but liability for Corporation tax were purchased. They were lent substantial sums for the purposes of investment, and the interest charges had the effect of allowing reclaims of Corporation tax. They were then to move offshore. The Inland Revenue contended that the loan arrangements were a sham, and that documents had been falsely dated. The defendant was a tax adviser to the scheme. Held: None of the documentary evidence constituted an admission by the Defendant, nor informed him of any fraudulent activity. It could not be said that the judge's decision was perverse.
Criminal Justice Act 1987
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Dimsey [2001] UKHL 46
11 Oct 2001
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Steyn Lord Hutton Lord Scott of Foscote
Taxes Management, Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Human Rights
The defendant provided financial services, including the provision of offshore companies for a co-defendant. They were used to secrete assets abroad. Misleading information was provided to the revenue by the applicant and others. They were charged with conspiracy. Only one charge remained effective, but it was argued that since, under s 739(2) that income was deemed, in any event, to be that of one of the defendants, but the case had been presented on the basis that it was the income of the companies which had been hidden. If the presumption against double taxation applied, it was not also the income of the company, and the prosecution failed. The Act contained separate definitions of Income Tax Acts and Corporation Tax Acts, and it was counter-argued that deeming provisions for the one, did not exclude the other. No such distinction could apply in this section. The double taxation possibility remained theoretical. The revenue was left with a choice as to how the income might be treated and taxed. That was argued to be a breach of the human right to enjoy one's goods free of interference from the State. That discretion was held to be within the State's margin of appreciation. The companies were liable to corporation tax, and the conviction stood.
Finance Act 1936 36 - Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 739 746
1 Cites

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Allen; HL 11-Oct-2001 - [2001] UKHL 45; [2002] 1 AC 509; [2002] HRLR 4; [2001] 4 All ER 768; [2001] STC 1537; 4 ITL Rep 140; [2002] 1 Cr App Rep 18; [2001] BTC 421; [2001] STI 134; [2001] UKHL TC_74_263
 
Transco Plc v Inspector of Taxes [2001] UKSC SPC03064
23 Nov 2001
SCIT

Corporation Tax
SCIT CORPORATION TAX - deduction in computing profits - expenditure on replacement of iron and steel pipes with pipes of polyethylene - whether improvements - no - whether repairs - yes - whether capital expenditure - no - whether revenue expenditure - yes - appeal allowed - ICTA 1988 s 74(1)(f).
Income nd Corporation Taxes Act 1988 74(1)(f)
[ Bailii ]
 
Transco Plc v Inspector of Taxes [2001] UKSC SPC00310
23 Nov 2001
SCIT

Corporation Tax
CORPORATION TAX - deduction in computing profits - expenditure on replacement of iron and steel pipes with pipes of polyethylene - whether improvements - no - whether repairs - yes - whether capital expenditure - no - whether revenue expenditure - yes - appeal allowed - ICTA 1988 s 74(1)(f).
[ Bailii ]
 
Slater Ltd and Others v Beacontree General Commissioners and Another Times, 18 December 2001; Gazette, 06 February 2002
6 Dec 2001
ChD
Justice Lightman
Taxes Management, Company, Corporation Tax
When the general commissioners were investigating an appeal against the imposition of penalties, it was open to them to ask the company to present more detailed accounts than would be provided under the rules which allowed smaller companies to file short accounts. It was not enough to offer access to the companies books. The commissioners were entitled to require a profit and loss account in one of the four statutory formats. The defaults in this case were deliberate, and inexcusable, and the penalties should be sufficiently substantial to mean something. The penalties here were modest and the companies could make no legitimate complaint of them.
Companies Act 1985 248 - General Commissioners (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations 1994 (1994 No 1812) 10(3)

 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.