NEC 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 provisions had not been given effect in domestic law in respect of advance corporation tax. It did not greatly matter whether the High Court lacked jurisdiction to decide some of the claims or had a discretion to accept or decline jurisdiction since he would decline to exercise whatever jurisdiction he might have. The most important factor was that ‘whether it would be more convenient to commence the entire case in the High Court or not, that is not the system our law provides for the resolution of tax disputes between taxpayers and the Revenue.’ It was not ‘a major inconvenience’ to have two sets of proceedings when they would proceed sequentially and not simultaneously, with the High Court proceedings claiming consequential relief going ahead only if the taxpayers were successful in the proceedings before the special commissioners.
The Hon Mr Justice Park
[2003] EWHC 2813 (Ch), Gazette 29-Jan-2004, [2004] STC 594
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 247
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoMarks 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 AlsoClaimants 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 . .

Cited by:
At first instanceAutologic 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 . .
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 . .
See AlsoClaimants 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 . .
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: . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 February 2021; Ref: scu.188282