Request for postponement of tax payment constituted claim for repayment.
Citations:
Times 02-Jun-1995
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Corporation Tax
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.89027
Request for postponement of tax payment constituted claim for repayment.
Times 02-Jun-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.89027
To change a company’s accounting period, must be uncertain to Inspector. It is not an objective test.
Ind Summary 19-Jun-1995
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 12-8
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.82719
A close company has an additional obligation to notify the Revenue that a loan was chargeable to tax, and in default, it was liable for interest.
Ind Summary 01-May-1995, Times 17-Mar-1995
England and Wales
Appeal from – Earlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-May-1993
In computing company’s tax liability excessive pay not deductible. . .
Appealed to – Earlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-May-1993
In computing company’s tax liability excessive pay not deductible. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80212
Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Employment Income
[2017] UKFTT 585 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.592625
Application by the defendants (‘HMRC’) to make certain re-amendments to their defence to which the claimants have not consented.
Henderson J
[2013] EWHC 3757 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.518500
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.
Gazette 24-Feb-2000, Times 15-Mar-2000
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 18(1)(a)(ii)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.89708
Section 790 of the 1988 Act should be construed to accord with European law so far as necessary to allow for the grant of tax credits for foreign dividends.
Henderson J
[2013] EWHC 3249 (Ch), [2013] WLR(D) 411, [2013] BTC 751, [2014] 2 CMLR 10, [2014] STC 1236, [2013] STI 3391
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 790
England and Wales
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.516970
FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – loan relationships – debit under paragraph 19A, Schedule 9, Finance Act 1996 in respect of the difference in the accounting value of loan relationships on a change of accounting practice – appellant company changing accounting practice from UK GAAP to IFRS at the 2004 year-end – appellant claiming the debit in the 2005 accounting period – whether there was as a matter of fact the relevant difference in the accounting value – expert evidence as to UK GAAP and IFRS considered – found that there was the relevant difference in accounting value – whether in that case the debit was not to be brought into account, as being attributable to an unallowable purpose, under paragraph 13, Schedule 9, Finance Act 1996 – found that the appellant’s tax avoidance purpose was achieved at the 2004 year-end – there were no times during the 2005 accounting period during which the appellant had an unallowable purpose such that on a just and reasonable apportionment any part of the debit was to be attributed to it – appeal allowed
[2013] UKFTT 212 (TC)
England and Wales
Appeal From – Fidex Limited v Revenue and Customs UTTC 13-Nov-2014
Procedure – appeal against closure notice – reliance on grounds for amendment not stated in closure notice – Tower McCashback considered Corporation tax – loan relationships – application of paragraph 13 Sch9 FA 1996 to debit arising under para19A . .
At FTTX – Fidex Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 21-Apr-2016
‘This appeal is concerned with a tax avoidance scheme called Project Zephyr. The object of this scheme was to create a loss of around 84 million Euros in the hands of the appellant (‘Fidex’) which would be available for group relief throughout the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472799
CORPORATION TAX – loans to participators – loan proving to be irrecoverable – removal of company property – deductibility – s419 ICTA 1988
[2012] UKFTT 679 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466225
Corporation Tax – late filing of return – penalty – reasonable excuse – no
[2012] UKFTT 554 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466083
The court considered the application of the ‘exclusively’ test for expenditure which was sought to be set off against tax. Examining the leading modern cases, Millett LJ said: ‘the following propositions may be derived. (1) The words for the purposes of the trade mean to serve the purposes of the trade. They do not mean for the purposes of the taxpayer but for the purposes of the trade, which is a different concept. A fortiori they do not mean for the benefit of the taxpayer. (2) To ascertain whether the payment was made for the purposes of the taxpayer’s trade it is necessary to discover his object in making the payment. Save in obvious cases which speak for themselves, this involves an inquiry into the taxpayer’s subjective intentions at the time of the payment. (3) The object of the taxpayer in making the payment must be distinguished from the effect of the payment. A payment may be made exclusively for the purposes of the trade even though it also secures a private benefit. This will be the case if the securing of the private benefit was not the object of the payment but merely a consequential and incidental effect of the payment. (4) Although the taxpayer’s subjective intentions are determinative, these are not limited to the conscious motives which were in his mind at the time of the payment. Some consequences are so inevitably and inextricably involved in the payment that unless merely incidental they must be taken to be a purpose for which the payment was made. To these propositions I would add one more. The question does not involve an inquiry of the taxpayer whether he consciously intended to obtain a trade or personal advantage by the payment. The primary inquiry is to ascertain what was the particular object of the taxpayer in making the payment. Once that is ascertained, its characterisation as a trade or private purpose is in my opinion a matter for the commissioners, not for the taxpayer.’
Millett LJ
[1997] STC 734, [1997] EWCA Civ 1297
England and Wales
Cited – Mallalieu v Drummond HL 27-Jul-1983
The taxpayer was a barrister. To comply with Bar guidance on court dress, she wore, in court and in and to and from chambers black dresses, suits and shoes and white blouses. The clothing were perfectly ordinary articles suitable for everyday wear. . .
Appeal from – Vodafone Cellular Ltd v Shaw (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 8-Mar-1995
A payment buying out technology royalties was not to be allowed against Corporation Tax. The cost of buying out a right to receive a revenue share was an income payment, not a capital payment. . .
Cited – MacKinlay (Inspector of Taxes) v Arthur Young McClelland Moores and Co HL 23-Nov-1989
Expenditure does not qualify for deduction if the object of the expenditure was to serve another private purpose in addition to the business purpose for which it was purportedly incurred.
HL Income Tax – . .
Cited – David Robson v Eric Mitchell (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 8-Jul-2004
The taxpayer sought capital gains tax relief of a loan to a business.
Held: To succeed in his claim the taxpayer had to establish that the indebtedness created was to be used entirely to serve the borrower’s business. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.141693
Penalty – Section 98A(2) and (3) Taxes Management Act 1970 – late Employer’s P35 End of Year Return – Appellant thought Return had been filed on-line – further delays despite reminders – no reasonable excuse
[2012] UKFTT 391 (TC), [2012] UKFTT 391 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462802
A transfer pricing direction allowed the Inland Revenue to issue adjustments after 6 years.
Ind Summary 08-Jan-1996, [1996] STC 191
England and Wales
Appeal from – Glaxo Group Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 21-Nov-1995
A tax adjustment can be made by the Inland Revenue on an open assessment following transfer pricing enquiry and direction, even after many years. The court considered that the jurisdiction of the special and the general commissioners to determine . .
Cited – UK Tradecorp Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioners for Customs and Excise Admn 10-Nov-2004
The trader had traded in zero-rated goods, leading to a net reclaim of input tax. Having submitted a claim, it sought repayment, and interest on the sums withheld.
Held: No duty fell upon the commissioners until they had accepted the claim to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.80862
Capital allowances were not available on plant which had been leased to the Local Authority and which had since had become part of land occupied by them. The plant was no longer owned by the tax payers. Leased fixtures given capital allowances by sch 17 of 1985 Act after 1984.
Gazette 19-Oct-1994, Times 17-Aug-1994, Ind Summary 05-Sep-1994
England and Wales
Appeal from – Melluish (Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No3) Ltd and Related Appeals ChD 15-Feb-1994
No capital allowances were available for a lease of heating equipment in a tenanted property. Allowances might be available if the property were not tenanted. . .
Appeal from – Melluish (Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No 3) Ltd and Related Appeals HL 16-Oct-1995
Chattels which became affixed to a lessee’s land became fixtures, and were not available for tax allowances calculations. Lord Browne-Wilkinson said: ‘The terms expressly or implicitly agreed between the fixer of the chattel and the owner of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.83608
Group tax relief was available despite other subsidiary companies within the same group being offshore.
Gazette 20-Oct-1993, Times 11-Aug-1993, Ind Summary 09-Aug-1993
England and Wales
Appeal from – ICI Plc v Colmer (Inspector of Taxes) HL 15-Mar-1996
A ‘Holding company’ under the Act meant a company resident in the UK; A reference was made of the issues to the European Court. . .
At Court of Appeal – Imperial Chemical Industries v Colmer ECJ 16-Jul-1998
A member state was not allowed to impose a tax regime which discriminated against the subsidiaries of a company based in that state where they were based in other member states, but discrimination was allowed where the subsidiaries were based . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81606
Sir Geoffrey Charles Vos Ch, Underhill, David Richards LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1180, [2017] STC 696, [2016] BTC 44, [2017] 1 CMLR 37
England and Wales
At ChD – The Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Another ChD 14-Oct-2015
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.571930
(State Aid) Appeal – Aid granted by the Italian authorities to newly listed companies – Legislation providing for tax advantages
C-458/09, [2011] EUECJ C-458/09
European
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449366
PROFITS – capital or revenue expenditure – costs of planning inquiry – taxpayer claiming conditions in planning permission invalid or seeking relaxation of the conditions – part capital, part revenue – remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for an apportionment
[2011] UKUT B15 (TCC), [2011] STC 1469
England and Wales
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440822
ECJ Taxation – Interest payments between associated companies of different Member States – Deductibility of payments when determining the basis of taxation of the company making interest payments.
C-397/09, [2011] EUECJ C-397/09
European
Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.439767
Corporation tax – deductibility of payment to employee benefit trust (EBT) – whether payment made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of appellant’s trade – ICTA 1988 s 74(1)(a) – whether payment revenue or capital expenditure – ICTA, s 74(1)(f) – whether payment a ‘potential emolument’ – FA 1989, s 43(11)
[2011] UKFTT 16 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428211
Corporation Tax – Insurance company – with-profits policy holders sharing in profits of with-profits policies only-meaning of ‘separate revenue account required to be prepared’ in FA 1989 s 83A(2)(b)
[2010] UKUT B19 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428171
A tax adjustment can be made by the Inland Revenue on an open assessment following transfer pricing enquiry and direction, even after many years. The court considered that the jurisdiction of the special and the general commissioners to determine such issues was exclusive: ‘It is not easy to discern any clear dividing-line between High Court proceedings which are, and those which are not, objectionable as attempts to circumvent the exclusive jurisdiction principle. Possibly the correct view is that there is an absolute exclusion of the High Court’s jurisdiction only when the proceedings seek relief which is more or less co-extensive with adjudicating on an existing open assessment: but that the more closely the High Court proceedings approximate to that in their substantial effect, the more ready the High Court will be, as a matter of discretion, to decline jurisdiction.’
Robert Walker J
Times 21-Nov-1995, Ind Summary 11-Dec-1995, [1995] STC 1075
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 770
England and Wales
Appeal from – Glaxo Group Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 8-Jan-1996
A transfer pricing direction allowed the Inland Revenue to issue adjustments after 6 years. . .
Applied – Claimants 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 – UK Tradecorp Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioners for Customs and Excise Admn 10-Nov-2004
The trader had traded in zero-rated goods, leading to a net reclaim of input tax. Having submitted a claim, it sought repayment, and interest on the sums withheld.
Held: No duty fell upon the commissioners until they had accepted the claim to . .
Approved – Autologic 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 . .
Applied – Capper v Chaney and Another ChD 8-Jul-2010
Police had seized substantial sums of cash from the first defendant acting under the 2004 Act. The claimant said that andpound;250,00 was his and sought its return. The Commissioner argued that the current proceedings were an abuse of process.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.80861
When principal in group of companies relocated abroad, inter-group transfer of shares resulting was chargeable to corporation tax.
Times 16-Mar-1998
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 278
England and Wales
Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.80172
Once a dispute on an assessment has been settled between the taxpayer and the Inspector, the taxpayer cannot subsequently appeal against refusal of relief for a claim of an error. There was no point of law in such an error.
Times 21-May-1999
Taxes Management Act 1970 54 33
England and Wales
Appealed to – Eagerpath Ltd v Edwards (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 14-Dec-2000
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 . .
Appeal from – Eagerpath Ltd v Edwards (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 14-Dec-2000
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.80205
The Court was asked whether or not certain expenditure incurred by the Appellant (‘Dawsongroup’) was deductible in computing its profits for the purposes of corporation tax
Mann J
[2010] EWHC 1061 (Ch), [2010] STC 1906, [2010] BTC 1528
England and Wales
Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415086
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Articles 49 TFEU, 54 TFEU, 107 TFEU and 108(3) TFEU – Freedom of establishment – State aid – Taxation of groups of companies – Acquisition of a holding in a subsidiary – Depreciation of the goodwill – Limitation on holdings in resident companies
ECLI:EU:C:2015:661, [2015] EUECJ C-66/14
European
Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.553097
Penalty – Failure to provide information and documents – reliance on accountant – Whether reasonable excuse – No – Appeal dismissed – Paragraph 29 schedule 18 Finance Act 1998
[2009] UKFTT 329 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.409108
FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – ASSESSMENT – DEDUCTION FOR EXPENDITURE – Was the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for its Schedule A business – No – Was the Appellant a Charity – No – Appeal dismissed
[2010] UKFTT 71 (TC), [2010] SFTD 515
England and Wales
Cited – Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 2002
The taxpayer company had entered into two contracts on the same day. The contracts involved a taxpayer buying a freehold property from developers coupled with a separate development agreement under which the developers would complete construction . .
At FTTTx – Helena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 9-May-2012
The company had undertaken substantial building works and sought associated tax relief. The court was asked whether, following a change in the company’s memorandum and articles of association, the company, a registered social landlord, remained a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408925
Moses LJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 394
England and Wales
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408526
Peter Smith J
[2010] EWHC 609 (Ch), [2010] BTC 467, 12 ITL Rep 935, [2010] STI 1284, [2010] STC 1379
England and Wales
Appeal from – Bayfine UK v HM Revenue and Customs CA 23-Mar-2011
The revenue appealed against the confirmation of the grant of double taxation relief to the taxpayer company. The Court was asked whether the UK company was entitled under article 23(2)(a) to a credit, to set against UK tax on its profits, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.403482
[2010] EWCA Civ 103
England and Wales
Cited – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
Appeal from – Test Claimants In the FII Group Litigation v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 27-Nov-2008
The claimants were companies with parent companies in the UK and other subsidiaries not so resident, both in the EU and outside. They complained of the differences in treatment under corporation tax of the payment of dividends between the . .
Appeal from – Test 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401676
The part use of an industrial building as an office defeats a capital allowance claim.
Gazette 01-May-1996, Times 21-Mar-1996
Capital Allowances Act 1990 18
England and Wales
Appealed to – Girobank Plc v Clarke (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 19-Dec-1997
The use of a building for data processing does not qualify it as the subjection of goods or materials to any process and therefore no capital allowance was claimable. . .
Appeal from – Girobank Plc v Clarke (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 19-Dec-1997
The use of a building for data processing does not qualify it as the subjection of goods or materials to any process and therefore no capital allowance was claimable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.80844
Interest which was retained by a bank until closure of the account under a firm arrangement to that effect was not taxable as it accrued but only when it came to be due to be paid. Income did not normally arise until it was payable.
Gazette 20-May-1998, Times 22-Apr-1998, [1998] 70 TC 682, [1998] STC 567
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 64 70(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.80848
A payment made out of a pension scheme which had subsequently been found unlawful and ordered to be repaid, was not a taxable payment as such. The payment had been made in good faith and on advice.
Times 13-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 219
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 601
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.81384
Platforms installed for storage were plant for capital allowances.
Gazette 02-Sep-1992
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.81528
ECJ (Taxation) Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations) Free movement of capital Article 56 EC Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement Direct taxation Withholding tax on outgoing dividends Deduction to the registered office of the beneficiary of the dividend under a preventive double taxation
C-540/07, [2009] EUECJ C-540/07 – O
European
Opinion – Commission v Italy C-540/07 ECJ 19-Nov-2009
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Free movement of capital Article 56 EC Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement Direct taxation Withholding at source on outgoing dividends Set-off at the place . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.374262
FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – de-listing of quoted company – whether costs of delisting allowable expense in corporation tax computation – whether company an ‘investment company’ – ICTA s 130 – no – whether costs ‘expenses of management’ – ICTA s 75 – no – appeal dismissed
[2009] UKFTT 137 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373677
FTTTx EUROPEAN LAW – group relief for losses of non-resident subsidiaries – whether there are no possibilities for those losses to be taken into account at the date of the group relief claim – no at the date of the original claims which are not valid claims, and yes on 20 March 2007 when the second claims were made — appeals allowed in principle
[2009] UKFTT 64 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373618
[2009] UKFTT 141 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373599
The Inland Revenue is to notify taxpayer of a change in acquiescence in practice to late payment.
Ind Summary 12-Sep-1994
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Unilever plc CA 1996
The Revenue had refused to exercise a discretion in favour of the taxpayer in the same form it had granted for over twenty years. The taxpayer complained that this was unfair.
Held: The new approach to late applications, brought in without any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.86940
Henderson J
[2008] EWHC 1363 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270218
The taxpayer company had received compensation for having been excluded from its business premises for a period until a compulsory purchase process failed. It treated the receipt as capital. The revenue said it was income.
Held: The court considered how to treat mistakes of law by lower courts.
Buxton LJ said: ‘We were assured on all sides that the present issue is one of law. So be it: but it is an issue of law of a rather special sort, not least because . . . the distinction between capital and income has to be determined from a practical and business point of view. . . For my part, and whatever the technical jurisprudential position, I would think that the time has now come to leave these practical and business issues principally in the hands of the specialist tribunal that has been constituted to decide them. Parties should in future hesitate long before contending that a view taken by that specialist tribunal is apt for reconsideration by the High Court, and much less by this court.’
Lawrence Collins LJ said: ‘There is much to be said for the view, expressed in a different context, that where the answer to a question is a matter of degree, taking account of all the circumstances, then an appellate court should show some circumspection before interfering with the decision at first instance: Beynon v Customs and Excise Commissioners [2005] 1 WLR 86 at [27]. In particular, once as a matter of law a receipt or an expenditure is capable of being regarded as capital or income (as the case maybe), then the Commissioners’ decision should be capable of review only on Edwards v Bairstow 1956 AC14 principals.’
Buxton LJ, Moses LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 1207
England and Wales
Cited – London and Thames Haven Oil Wharves Ltd v Attwooll CA 1966
When asking whether a payment of damages was a capital or income receipt, the court should ask whether the sum which the trader ought to have received have been credited as an income receipt of the trade? . .
Appeal from – Able (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs ChD 19-Oct-2006
Appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the General Commissioners as to whether a certain compensation payment received by the appellant under section 31(3) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 was income or capital. The General . .
Cited – Able (UK) Holdings Ltd v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 30-Jun-2006
. .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd ChD 21-Jan-2008
The court was asked whether the weight-watchers program which included attendance at a course and a supply of supporting materials was one single standard-rated supply or separate supplies of zero-rated printed materials and standard-rated support . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261448
Loss relief available but reduced by contributions from others.
Gazette 13-Jan-1993
Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 136-4
England and Wales
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.83026
Europa Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital Corporation tax Loan interest paid to a related company resident in another Member State or in a non-member country Interest treated as a distribution Cohesion of the tax system Tax avoidance).
[2007] EUECJ C-524/04, [2006] EUECJ C-524/04
European
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251136
The Revenue sought to disallow for industrial buildings allowance sums expended on warehouse premises which were to be used to store window products imported for use in other manufacturing processes.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal succeeded. ‘The question under s.18(1) is whether the warehouse is in use for the purposes of a trade which consists in the storage of qualifying goods and materials.’ and ‘for an operation to be part of a trade within the meaning of s.18(2) it must itself be an activity in the nature of a trade. As s.18 itself demonstrates a trade for these purposes is not limited to the selling of goods and can include both manufacturing and processing operations. But like Lightman J, I am not persuaded that storage as a trade in s.18(1) and as part of a trade in s.18(2) involve the application of quite different tests. Section 18(2) operates only to expand the definition contained in s.18(1) not to alter it. ‘ Although the storage of the qualifying goods in this case is carried out in a separate building and on a quite different scale, it is nonetheless carried out to support the company’s wholesale trading operation and not as a trading or commercial activity in itself. On my view of s.18(2) that is not enough.
Patten J
[2006] EWHC 1832 (Ch), Times 11-Aug-2006, [2006] BTC 829, [2006] STI 1919, [2007] STC 721
Capital Allowances Act 1990, Capital Allowances Act 2001
England and Wales
Cited – Kay v Burrows HL 1931
The House considered whether premises (the greater part of which was used for the storage of rags awaiting processing, sorting or subsequent despatch) fell within the proviso to s.3(1) which excluded premises ‘primarily occupied and used [for the] . .
Cited – Dale (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Johnson Brothers 1951
(Year?) The taxpayer claimed an industrial buildings allowance against his tax liabilities for a warehouse used as storage as a trade in itself. Two thirds of the use was for storage of finished goods awaiting collection or delivery. The taxpayers . .
Cited – Saxone Lilley and Skinner (Holdings) Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue HL 1967
The taxpayer company was the parent company of a group of subsidiaries, one of which traded as the manufacturer and retailer of shoes. The others either manufactured or sold shoes. The company built a warehouse which was let to a warehousing . .
Cited – Bestway (Holdings) Ltd v Luff (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 4-Mar-1998
The taxpayer company operated a wholesale cash and carry business from a number of self-service supermarkets. The stores sold groceries, household goods, tobacco, confectionery and various kinds of alcohol. Although the buildings were not open to . .
Wrongly Decided – Crusabridge Investments Ltd v Casings International Limited 1979
The landlord of light industrial premises sought damages from his tenant for breach of the user covenant in the lease. This permitted the premises to be used, inter alia, as an ‘industrial building or structure’ as defined by the Capital Allowances . .
Cited – Kilmarnock Equitable Co-operative Society Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners SCS 16-Feb-1966
Income Tax, Schedule D – Profits Tax – Capital allowances – Industrial building or structure – Building for screening and packing coal – Whether coal subjected to a process – Whether building used for purpose ancillary to a retail shop – Income Tax . .
Cited – Vibroplant Ltd v Holland (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 1980
The use of the buildings for servicing and repairing the plant which Vibroplant wished to hire out, was an essential part of Vibroplant’s business of plant hire operators and part of their trade. Although not required to decide the point, the court . .
Cited – Rolls Royce Motors Ltd v Bamford 1976
The court was asked whether the new state owned company which took over some of the assets and undertaking of Rolls Royce Ltd following its insolvency was entitled to carry forward and set against its profits the losses of the old company up to the . .
At SCIT – Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SCIT 25-Oct-2005
SCIT CAPITAL ALLOWANCES – industrial buildings allowances – building used to house goods manufactured by the Appellant’s Austrian parent company for sale to wholesalers in the UK to be used in manufacture – . .
Appeal from – Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 19-Jun-2007
Correct classification, for the purposes of capital allowances, of expenditure on a building provided for the business of the appellant. . .
At Divisional Court – Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked whether a warehouse used to store purchases made by the company from its parent company in Austria, was an ‘industrial building or structure’. It was agreed that the facility was used for the storage of materials for use in later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243331
Profits Tax – Trade or business transferred – Election under Section 36 (4), Finance Act, 1947 – Transferor company wound up after selling shares in successor – Distributions exceed paid-up share capital – Whether distribution charge incurred – Finance Act, 1947 (10 and 11 Geo. VI, c.35), Section 30(3), 35 (1) (c), 36 (4) and 43 (1).
[1961] UKHL TC – 39 – 707
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.559964
Application for leave to appal against penalties imposed for failing to complay with notices requiring the production of documents to the Commissioners.
Robert Walker LJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 259
England and Wales
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216855
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.
Times 13-Mar-2001, Gazette 20-Apr-2001
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 706
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.82347
The parties disputed the taxation of currency contracts in the form of front end payments on two hedging transaction.
Mummery, Laws, Moses LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 622, 79 TC 691, [2009] BTC 306, [2009] STI 2024, [2009] STC 2459
England and Wales
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.347201
[2004] UK SPC00415
England and Wales
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199211
The claimants were due to have substantial sums repaid after it had been found that the system of making premature reclaims of advance corporation tax had been was discriminatory under European Law.
Held: The sums payable were to carry interest calculated on a compound interest basis.
Park J
Times 25-Jun-2004, [2004] EWHC 2387 (Ch), [2004] STI 1495, [2004] Eu LR 939, [2004] BTC 358, [2004] STC 1178
England and Wales
At First Instance – Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another HL 18-Jul-2007
The parties agreed that damages were payable in an action for restitution, but the sum depended upon to a calculation of interest. They disputed whether such interest should be calculated on a simple or compound basis. The company sought compound . .
Appeal from – Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue and Another CA 12-Apr-2005
The court was asked whether it was contrary to Community law – specifically, the provisions then contained in article 52 of the EC Treaty (now renumbered as article 43) – for the domestic tax law in the United Kingdom to differentiate, in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198393
Buxton LJ: ‘The issue therefore is one of simple statutory construction. Can the expression ‘payment’ when used in section 87 of the 1970 Act, or ‘pays’ when used both in section 246N(2) of the 1988 Act and section 239 of the 1988 Act, encompass a set-off of the sort that the appellant asserts? In order to succeed, the appellant has to establish, both that those statutory references to payment or paying can potentially include a situation of set-off; and that also that in this case ‘set-off’ was in fact available to the appellant. In my judgment, the appellant fails on both of those scores.’
Buxton LJ
[2003] EWCA Civ 173
England and Wales
Cited – Hanak v Green CA 1958
A builder was sued for his failure to complete the works he had contracted for. The buider sought a set-off against that claim of three of his one claims. One, under the contract, was for losses from the defendant’s refusal to allow his workmen . .
Cited – Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd; The Aries HL 1977
Claims for freight charges are an exception to the general rule that all claims between parties must be resolved in one action. A claim for freight cannot be a claim ‘on the same grounds’ as a counter-claim for loss or damage arising out of the . .
Appeal from – Burton (Collector of Taxes) v Mellham Ltd HL 15-Feb-2006
The claimant sought interest on an overpayment of Advance Corporation Tax. The tax itself had been paid late, and the Collector claimed a set off.
Held: The claim to DTR could not be described as an attempt at self-help. It had a statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181110
German law taxed interest paid on loan repayments made by a company against a loan from a shareholder, but only where the shareholder was not resident in the same country as the company. The tax authority took the view that the payments were a equivalent to a covert distribution of profits.
Held: This was discriminatory, and offended the principal of freedom of establishment. It was wrong to compare the position of a company trading for profit with corporations exempt from corporation tax. Reduction in tax revenue is not an overriding reason in the public interest capable of justifying a measure contravening a fundamental principle.
Wathelet, President, Timmermans, Edward, Jann and Rosas JJ
Times 27-Dec-2002, C-324/00, [2002] EUECJ C-324/00, [2002] ECR I-11779, [2003] STC 607
European
Cited – Foulser and Another v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 20-Dec-2005
The taxpayer company entered into an arrangement in which shares were purchased by a company based in Ireland and resold. A claim was made for holdover relief.
Held: The scheme failed. The restriction imposed did not infringe the right of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178612
Company must exist for purpose of trading to get relief on interest on loan.
Ind Summary 12-Jul-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83199
Freedom to provide services – Commercial tax on capital and operating profit – Reinstatement in tax base – Exemption not applicable to lessee of property whose owner is established in another Member State and therefore not subject to tax
C-294/97, [1999] EUECJ C-294/97, [1999] ECR I-7447
European
Cited – Foulser and Another v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 20-Dec-2005
The taxpayer company entered into an arrangement in which shares were purchased by a company based in Ireland and resold. A claim was made for holdover relief.
Held: The scheme failed. The restriction imposed did not infringe the right of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162207
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.
Times 22-Nov-2000
England and Wales
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83390
Provision in airline accounts for engine overhauls was proper accounting.
Times 20-Jul-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.82567
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.
[2000] EWCA Civ 86
England and Wales
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147119
The appellants entered into partnerships with a film production company. By doing so they intended to make available to themselves first year allowances on the capital expenditure incurred. Loan agreements protected them from any eventual loss.
Held: Money which had been spent mainly for trading had the benefit of the tax allowances whatever the motive behind for structure of the transactions. Even if a fiscal motive was the sole or paramount motive for a transaction, that would not deprive the action of its proper nature. The legal effect was of a trading transaction with a capital expenditure, and the case was remitted for consideration on that basis. A composite transaction which could fairly be described as involving a ‘conjuring trick’, artificiality and self-cancelling elements, should nonetheless not be called a sham, in the relevant sense.
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Gazette 06-May-1992, [1992] 1 AC 655, [1992] CLY 611, [1992] 2 WLR 469, [1992] STC 226
England and Wales
Applied – Craven (IOT) v White (Stephen); Inland Revenue Commissioners v Bowater Property Developments HL 1989
In Craven, the taxpayers owned shares in Q Ltd. In early 1976 they began to negotiate with C Ltd for a merger of the two companies and steps were taken to establish an Isle of Man holding company to act as a vehicle for the taxpayers’ shares should . .
Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
Cited – New Angel Court Ltd v Adam (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 25-Jul-2003
The taxpayer company employed a subsidiary company through which it conducted its trade in land. It then sought to represent the profits from that subsidiary within its own accounts as trading profits for corporation tax purposes. The commissioner . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Dempster (T/A Boulevard) ChD 24-Jan-2008
The revenue wished to refuse a claim to set off input tax for two transactions involving the alleged purchase of software. They said the transactions were a sham.
Held: The revenue’s appeal failed.
Briggs J said: ‘the critical question . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80334
Housing association which was registered under Act is an investment company and is to carry a profit charge.
Times 01-Jan-1997
Industrial and Provident Act 1965, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 130
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79477
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.
Times 24-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 156
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 239(3)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Carr (Inspector of Taxes) v Armpledge Ltd; Same v Fielden and Ashworth Ltd ChD 12-Oct-1998
A company’s settlement of its tax affairs had to be dealt with in chronological order even though it would be from it’s point of view more tax efficient to have them dealt with in reverse order. No right of choice was given to a taxpayer. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78912
A distinction is to be found between the construction of plant and the equipment installed. The Court should examine the function of a structure to decide if it was a plant or a building for allowance.
Gazette 09-Oct-1996, Times 01-Aug-1996
Capital Allowances Act 1990 24
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78546
A claim to deal on accounts which had been drawn over 104 weeks disallowed.
Gazette 12-May-1993
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78275
Reduction of assessment for overcharge can only apply to wrong assessment.
Gazette 29-Jul-1992
Taxes Management Act 1970 50(6)
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78026
The taxpayer sought to claim for capital allowances of andpound;91 million for gas pipelines. The claimant had provided the equipment through a leasing scheme.
Held: The leases were unusual, but did not appear to be merely part of a tax avoidance scheme. However, here the company already owned and operated the pipeline, and continued to do so after the arrangement. It owed the money before, and still owed it afterwards. The issue was whether the company had incurred the expenditure in provision of the pipeline, and practitioners should be careful not to lose themselves in the technical minutiae of the documentation. This was merely financial engineering, and did not qualify: ‘If corporation tax rates changed, the head lease rent payable to BMBF would change but the sublease rent payable by BGE (UK) would remain the same. If I have understood correctly how it would work, if the head lease rent went up BGE (UK) would still pay the full amount of the sublease rent to BMBF, and the balance of the (now) increased head lease rent would be paid by BGE to BMBF; if the head lease rent went down BGE (UK) would pay part of the sublease rent to BMBF (that part being equal to the (now) reduced head lease rent) and would pay the balance of the sublease rent to BGE.’
Park J
Times 26-Aug-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWHC Ch 1525, [2003] STC 66
Capital Allowances Act 1990 24(1)
England and Wales
Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
Cited – McNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd CA 26-Oct-1998
Cross loans were made between an investment company and pension schemes. The overall effect was to create payments which could be set off against Corporation Tax. They were not a pre-ordained series of transactions where the underlying loans were . .
Awaiting Appeal – BMBF (No 24) Limited v the Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 6-Nov-2003
The taxpayer, a non-resident, operated a sale and lease back scheme of machinery to be used in its business within the UK. There had been a chain of leases.
Held: The court had first to identify the ‘relevant lease’. It was the head lease . .
Appeal from – Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson, HM Inspector of Taxes CA 13-Dec-2002
The taxpayer entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement in respect of a gas pipeline, and sought to set off the costs as a capital allowance.
Held: The company’s appeal succeeded: ‘There is nothing in the statute to suggest that ‘up-front . .
At first instance – Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (HM Inspector of Taxes) HL 25-Nov-2004
The company had paid substantial sums out in establishing a gas pipeline, and claimed those sums against its tax as capital allowances. The transaction involved a sale and leaseback arrangement which the special commissioners had found to be a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.174737
Where a company ceased to be resident in the UK, and there was deemed as a result to be a transfer of shares between companies within the group, that transfer gave rise to a chargeable gain which was chargeable to Corporation Tax.
Times 05-Oct-1999
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 178
England and Wales
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80173
(Year?) The taxpayer claimed an industrial buildings allowance against his tax liabilities for a warehouse used as storage as a trade in itself. Two thirds of the use was for storage of finished goods awaiting collection or delivery. The taxpayers were the sole selling agents for various manufacturers and were obliged under the agreement with them to store sufficient products to enable prompt delivery to be made to customers. They relied on s.8(1)(d)(iii) of the 1945 Act.
Held: The claim was rejected. The trade carried on at the warehouse was not storage alone, but also the disposal of the goods as selling agents.
Sheil J said: ‘That Section, so far as it is invoked here, contemplates that the use of the building must be for a trade and that trade, so far as the use is concerned, must be a storage trade. It will not do that the trade is storage plus something else or something else plus storage. It must be simply a keeping or custody. When one considers the use of the two-thirds of this building it cannot be said that there was simply a keeping or custody in that part of it. The agreements required a constant active movement of the goods by the Respondents, a disposal of them by the Respondents ‘
Sheil J
(1951) 32 TC 487
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Maco Door and Window Hardware (Uk) Ltd ChD 19-Jul-2006
The Revenue sought to disallow for industrial buildings allowance sums expended on warehouse premises which were to be used to store window products imported for use in other manufacturing processes.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal succeeded. ‘The . .
Explained – Crusabridge Investments Ltd v Casings International Limited 1979
The landlord of light industrial premises sought damages from his tenant for breach of the user covenant in the lease. This permitted the premises to be used, inter alia, as an ‘industrial building or structure’ as defined by the Capital Allowances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244452
The taxpayer appealed his corporation tax assessments and had applied to a special commissioner for postponement of payment. The applications was to be heard in Glasgow, but for convenience it was heard in London, where it failed. The taxpayer then asked the High Court for judicial review of the postponment decisions. At the same time, the Crown had issued summonses in the Court of Session seeking payment of the tax due.
Held: The court granted a decree in favour of the Crown in both proceedings. The High Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The decision of the special commissioner on a Scottish tax case, although sitting for administrative convenience in London, remained subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Scottish court. Confusion could result if more than one court had jurisdiction.
Lord Wylie
(1986) 61 TC 1
Scotland
Cited – Tehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The House was asked whether an asylum applicant whose original application was determined in Scotland, but his application for leave to appeal rejected in London, should apply to challenge those decisions in London or in Scotland.
Held: Such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.245384
Lord Atkin said: ‘My Lords, it is now clearly established that in the case of a limited company the company itself is chargeable to tax on its profits, and that it pays tax in discharge of its own liability and not as agent for its shareholders. The latter are not chargeable with income tax on dividends, and they are not assessed in respect of them. The reason presumably is that the amount which is available to be distributed as dividend has already been diminished by tax on the company, and that it is thought inequitable to charge it again.’
Lord Wright said: ‘the shareholder is not taxed under Schedule D in respect of that part of his income which consists of dividends. The profits have been charged to tax in the hands of the company and that fact is deemed to redound to his benefit.’
Lord Atkin, Lord Wright
[1940] AC 51
England and Wales
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.573166
Even a large structure used for the purposes of the trade may be capable of being plant. In this case a dry dock was used in trade of ship builders, ship repairers and marine engineers.
[1969] 1 WLR 675
England and Wales
Cited – Shove (Inspector of Taxes) v Lingfield Park 1991 Ltd ChD 21-Jul-2003
The taxpayer, a race track owner, sought to claim the cost of laying an artificial all-weather race track surface as a capital allowance. The commissioners had found that it retained a separate identity from the grass, requiring maintenance and so . .
Cited – Gray (Inspector of Taxes) v Seymours Garden Centre (Horticulture) CA 31-May-1995
A ‘Planteria’ for the growing and storage of plants pending sale was premises, or a building, and not plant; no allowance was available. In considering the appeal, ‘the question for this Court, as it was for the Judge, is whether the facts found by . .
Cited – Lingfield Park (1991) Limited v Shove CA 31-Mar-2004
The taxpayers sought capital allowances on the costs of installing an artificial all-weather race track.
Held: The track was not either plant or machinery, and the taxpayer was not eligible for the relief. The only reasonable conclusion was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185850
Expenditure on modernising restaurants with shop fronts, floor and wall tiles, wall finishes, suspended ceilings, raised floors, fire doors and fire proofings was held not to be plant. The court asked what marks indicate that a structure premises of plant, for capital allowances purposes: ‘It is proper to consider the function of the item in dispute. But the question is what does it function as? If it functions as part of the premises it is not plant.’
Hoffmann J, Fox LJ, Lloyd LJ
[1988] SDTC 149, (1988) 61 TC 51
England and Wales
Cited – Shove (Inspector of Taxes) v Lingfield Park 1991 Ltd ChD 21-Jul-2003
The taxpayer, a race track owner, sought to claim the cost of laying an artificial all-weather race track surface as a capital allowance. The commissioners had found that it retained a separate identity from the grass, requiring maintenance and so . .
Cited – Lingfield Park (1991) Limited v Shove CA 31-Mar-2004
The taxpayers sought capital allowances on the costs of installing an artificial all-weather race track.
Held: The track was not either plant or machinery, and the taxpayer was not eligible for the relief. The only reasonable conclusion was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185847
A transaction might be so clearly inspired by fiscal considerations that its shape and character as a trading transaction would be insufficient to preserve its tax value as such.
[1984] 1 WLR 1328
England and Wales
Cited – New Angel Court Ltd v Adam (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 25-Jul-2003
The taxpayer company employed a subsidiary company through which it conducted its trade in land. It then sought to represent the profits from that subsidiary within its own accounts as trading profits for corporation tax purposes. The commissioner . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185842
Corporation Tax – National Tax Legislation Making The Transfer of The Losses – Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2018:526, C-28/17, [2018] EUECJ C-28/17
European
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620034
Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Profits – connected parties – sale of property below market value – assessments appealed – valuation being the only ground of appeal – matter referred to Lands Tribunal – agreement on valuation before hearing – whether Consent Order on valuation can be characterised as a s 54 TMA agreement; yes – (a) common intention to reach agreement over a particular matter; (b) agreement in relation to the assessments under appeal; (c) agreement competent to fix quantum of assessments and to dispose of substantive matter under appeal – settlement of appeals ensued within the statutory context of – ‘like consequences’ – A’s application to amend grounds of appeal refused
[2018] UKFTT 293 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619364
State Aid – Aid Implemented By Ireland In Favour of Apple – Order – Appeal – Intervention – Third country – State aid – Aid implemented by Ireland in favour of Apple – Advance tax agreement (tax ruling) – Selective tax advantages – Action for annulment – Interest in the result of the case
ECLI:EU:C:2018:330, [2018] EUECJ C-12/18P-I – CO
European
Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616985
Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other – CORPORATION TAX – appeal against paragraph 1 Schedule 36 information notice – whether burden of proof on HMRC – whether documents reasonably required for the purpose of checking the appellant’s tax position – appeal dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 232 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609291
No capital allowances for car wash structures. They were part of premises, not plant.
Carnwath J
Times 11-Dec-1995
Capital Allowances Act 1990 22 24
England and Wales
Appeal from – H M Inspector of Taxes (Atwood) v Anduff Car Wash Limited CA 17-Jul-1997
Capital allowances.
The taxpayer operated automatic car wash sites. It claimed capital allowances for the entirety of a wash hall, housed within a building incorporating washing machinery and control equipment, and surrounded by tarmac areas . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.78021
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.
Times 27-Jul-2000
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Taxes Management Act 1970, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85321
The income from investments set aside to cover future liabilities was not trading income.
Gazette 09-May-1996, Times 29-Mar-1996
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 393(8)
Appeal from – Nuclear Electric Plc v Bradley (Inspector of Taxes) CA 13-Nov-1995
Income on funds set aside but not allocated for expenditure not trading income . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84383
A Close company has a duty to notify the Inland Revenue of its liability with regard to loans made to participants.
Ind Summary 07-Feb-1994, Times 21-Jan-1994
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82572
A Life Assurance company’s management expenses were not deductible as quantum of profit.
Times 05-Jul-1996
Finance Act (No 2) Act 1992 65
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82545
Accruals accounting for engines repaired four yearly was appropriate.
Ind Summary 01-Aug-1994
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82566
Corporation tax – Purchase by traders of partnership interests and adherence to partnerships followed by realisation and distribution by partnerships of receivables – whether purchase price of partnership interests and contributions to capital of partnerships were capital or revenue expenditure – if revenue, whether incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of traders’ trades – if revenue incurred wholly and exclusively, whether HMRC entitled to raise further issue not in closure notice – whether partnership profits distributed to traders subject to two tax computations
[2018] UKUT 69 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608590
The tax payers had become involved in tax arrangements later fund to be tax avoidance.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘the materials before the FTT did not justify the attribution of any of the debits claimed by LGI to anything other than the ‘unallowable purpose’. LGI never supplied particulars of what loan(s) it claimed would have been made to it at what rate(s) of interest and for what period(s) had it not adopted the Deloitte scheme. No such details were, for example, given in LGI’s Notice of Appeal to the FTT, which simply contended that ‘the deductions for interest are allowable for corporation tax purposes’ and that ‘the non-trading loan relationship debits should be allowed against trading profits’. Again, Mr Turner’s witness statement said that the Novations ‘could have been replaced by the payment of dividends’, but did not expand on how or, in particular, what (if anything) LGI would have borrowed for the purpose. ‘
[2018] EWCA Civ 549
England and Wales
Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606480
Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other
[2018] UKFTT 20 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604353
Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Appeal
[2017] UKFTT 846 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.600984
CORPORATION TAX – application for ‘closure’ notices – para 33 of Schedule 18 to FA 1998 – whether there was a valid enquiry notice under para 24 of Schedule 18 to FA 1998; no – Tribunal has no jurisdiction to exercise – application refused
[2017] UKFTT 842 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.600968
Corporation Tax : Business Assets Roll-Over Relief
[2017] UKUT 389 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599435
Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Employment Income – Income tax, PAYE, NICs and corporation tax – Employee Benefit Trusts – whether contributions to sub-funds established for individual employees or loans from sub-funds to those employees constituted earnings for income tax and NIC purposes – whether corporation tax deduction available
[2017] UKFTT 692 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598979
An arrangement which had the effect of mitigating tax by a pre-ordained series of steps was nevertheless upheld as valid. Transactions were not caught by anti-avoidance provisions, where they were not in fact one composite whole.
Gazette 01-Mar-1995, Times 07-Feb-1995
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 239
England and Wales
Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.84733
Corporation Tax : Group Relief
[2017] UKUT 394 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595607
(Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other) INCOME TAX – CORPORATION TAX – Sch 36 Notices – reasonably required – higher threshold of ‘reason to suspect’ under para 21(6) -documents required to transfer ownership of land – meaning of failure to comply so as to incur a penalty – Sch 36 Notices partly upheld, partly set aside – penalties upheld.
[2017] UKFTT 616 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592643
Birss J
[2017] EWHC 1402 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.589955
Green J
[2017] EWHC 1476 (Admin)
England and Wales
See Also – Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Leave to appeal) Admn 29-Jun-2017
The parties disputed the power of the court to grant leave to appeal against its own decision. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588878
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Free movement of capital Article 56 EC Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement Direct taxation Withholding at source on outgoing dividends Set-off at the place of establishment of the recipient of the dividend, pursuant to a convention for the avoidance of double taxation
[2009] EUECJ C-540/07
European
Opinion – Commission v Italy C-540/07 ECJ 16-Jul-2009
ECJ (Taxation) Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations) Free movement of capital Article 56 EC Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement Direct taxation Withholding tax on outgoing dividends Deduction to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588172
Appeal from closure notices
[2017] UKUT 205 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584691
INFORMATION NOTICE – PENALTIES – whether wording of penalty notice issued by HMRC allowed further time for compliance with information notice – no – appeal dismissed
[2017] UKUT 215 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584690