Marks 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 recognised possibilities legally available given the objective facts of the company’s situation at the relevant time, and that the test was to be applied at the date when the group relief claim was made.

Park J
[2006] STC 1235, [2006] EWHC 811 (Ch)
England and Wales
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 (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 2-May-2003
Order requiring reference to ECJ. . .
See AlsoMarks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 10-Apr-2006
Preliminary judgment. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromHalsey (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 . .
See AlsoHM 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

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.518021