Pirelli Cable Holding NV and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners: ChD 22 Jan 2003

The Metallgesellschaft case had established that it was contrary to European law to withhold the right to ACT on dividends paid by a UK holding company to a non-Uk subsidiary. The Revenue claimed that that rule did not apply here because the non-Uk subsidiary operated from a country with a double taxation agreement with the UK.
Held: The Commissioners case was wrong. The receipt of payments in the Netherlands of tax credits did not operate to extinguish the right to payments within the UK. Those receipts were not countervailing advantages sufficient to justify the refusal of the tax credits within the UK.

Park J
Times 29-Jan-2003, [2003] EWHC 32 (Ch), Gazette 20-Mar-2003, [2003] STC 250
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 247
England and Wales
CitedMetallgesellschaft Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another Hoechst Ag and Another v Same ECJ 8-Mar-2001
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 . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromPirelli Cable Holding NV and others v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 16-Dec-2003
. .
At first InstancePirelli Cable Holding Nv and others v Inland Revenue HL 8-Feb-2006
Under s247 of the 1988 Act, a company paying dividends to a parent company need not withhold ACT. This option was not offered where either subsidiary or parent was not UK resident until the decision in Hoechst which found the restriction contrary to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, European

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.178784