Greene King Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 22 Apr 2014

CORPORATION TAX – loan relationship – assignment of right to interest under the loan to another group company – effect of assignment on recognition of loan in accounts of assignor company – proper application of loan relationship provisions to the assignee company

[2014] UKUT 178 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525883

Marks and Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Apr 2009

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

Malcolm Gammie QC TJ
[2009] UKFTT 00005 (TC), [2009] SFTD 1, [2009] UKFTT 64 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At FTTTXRevenue 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 . .
SeeAlsoMarks and Spencer Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 24-Aug-2009
. .
At FTTTxMarks and Spencer Plc v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 21-Jun-2010
UTTC 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 – date of valid claim . .
At FTTTxHM 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, European

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518020

Itelcar – Automoveis De Aluguer Lda v Fazenda Publica: ECJ 3 Oct 2013

ECJ Free movement of capital – Tax legislation – Corporation tax – Interest paid by a resident company on funds lent by a company established in a non-member country – Existence of ‘special relations’ between those companies – Thin capitalisation rules – No right of deduction in relation to interest on the part of the overall debt regarded as excessive – Interest deductible if paid to a company resident in the national territory – Tax evasion and avoidance – Wholly artificial arrangements – Arm’s length terms – Proportionality

ECLI:EU:C:2013:629, [2013] EUECJ C-282/12
Bailii
European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.516348

Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v Revenue and Customs: CA 20 May 2016

‘This judgment is about the tax effectiveness of a ‘rate-boosting’ scheme (‘the Scheme’), that is, a scheme to boost claims to double tax credit relief (‘DTR’) in the hands of a UK parent company (‘the UK ultimate parent’) on a dividend (‘a Case V dividend’) received by it from any of its overseas subsidiaries and originating from another UK resident company (‘the UK subsidiary’). A Case V dividend is taxable under Case V of schedule D to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (‘ICTA’). The UK ultimate parent is entitled to credit for foreign tax suffered by the paying company (‘the paying subsidiary’) and its subsidiaries.’

Arden. Kitchin, Jackson LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 468
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.564449

Six Continents Ltd and Another v Inland Revenue and Another: ChD 5 Oct 2016

Recovery of wrongly charged tax

The second claimant claimed restitution from the defendants in respect of United Kingdom corporation tax unlawfully charged on certain dividends paid to it by a wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated and resident in the Netherlands.

Henderson J
[2016] EWHC 2426 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.569929

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 other companies should proceed through the Commissioners who could implement European law directly. The taxpayers challenged their jurisdiction to hear certain claims.
Held: Where the Commissioners had jurisdiction, the taxpayers had an obligation to take their claims to the Commissioners.
Where the time limit for use of the statutory scheme had not expired, a taxpayer’s only way of challenging a taxing provision as contrary to European law was by making use of the statutory tribunal scheme, as opposed to judicial review.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said: ‘Underlying this conclusion is a point of general policy concerning cases where an applicant claims he has been wrongly deprived of benefits to which he is entitled under directly applicable provisions of Community law. Where Parliament has assigned to a specialist tribunal responsibility for adjudicating on disputes over the payment of such benefits, and an application to that tribunal is not time-barred, in the ordinary course the primary remedy for non-receipt of such benefits is to have recourse to that tribunal. That tribunal will give effect to the applicant’s rights under directly enforceable provisions of Community law as well as his rights under domestic law. The tribunal will afford him the benefits to which he is properly entitled. In such cases, where that course is still available to an applicant, claims in the High Court founded on an alleged breach of Community law will not normally be appropriate.’
Lord Millett said that ‘the computation of a taxpayer’s taxable profits for the purpose of determining his liability to tax is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the commissioners’
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe referred to: ‘the general principle embodied in tax law before self-assessment, that any dispute with the revenue about an individual’s liability to income tax or a company’s liability to corporation tax is to be determined in the first instance by the general commissioners or the special commissioners.’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
[2005] UKHL 54, Times 01-Aug-2005, [2005] 3 CMLR 2, [2005] STC 1357, [2005] STI 1336, [2006] 1 AC 118, [2005] 3 WLR 339, [2005] 4 All ER 1141, [2005] BTC 402, [2006] Eu LR 131, 77 TC 504
Bailii, House of Lords
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedImperial 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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
At first instanceNEC 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 . .
At First InstanceClaimants 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 . .
CitedIn re Vandervell’s Trusts (No 1); Vandervell Trustees Limited v White and Others HL 15-Jul-1970
Practice – Parties – Joinder – Proceedings between subjects raising issues material to income tax – Joinder of Commissioners of Inland Revenue – Income Tax Act 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2, c.10), ss. 52 and 64 ; Income Tax Management Act . .
MentionedBarraclough v Brown HL 1897
The 1889 Act gave statutory undertakers who had incurred expenditure in removing a sunken vessel a right ‘to recover such expenses from the owner of such vessel in a court of summary jurisdiction.’ the undertakers began their action in the High . .
ApprovedGlaxo 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 . .
At Special ComissionersMarks 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 . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Transport, Ex parte Factortame Ltd HL 18-May-1989
The applicants were companies owned largely by Spanish nationals operating fishing vessels within UK waters. The 1988 Act required them to re-register the vessels as British fishing vessels. The sought suspension of enforcement pending a reference . .
CitedAmministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA (No 2) ECJ 9-Mar-1978
ECJ The Court of Justice considered a reference for a preliminary ruling, pursuant to article 1977 of the Treaty, as having been validly brought before it so long as the reference has not been withdrawn by the . .
CitedImperial Chemical Industries Plc v Colmer (Inspector of Taxes) (No 2) HL 18-Nov-1999
Where a group of companies sought consortium group relief, but the majority of the companies within the group were based outside the European Union, the court need not apply European Union standards to the test, but could instead apply the standards . .
CitedD v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst /Particulieren /Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (Free Movement Of Capital) ECJ 5-Jul-2005
ECJ Tax legislation – Wealth tax – Entitlement to an allowance – Separate treatment of residents and non-residents – Double taxation convention. . .
CitedDorsch Consult Ingenieursgesellschaft v Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH ECJ 17-Sep-1997
ECJ Preliminary rulings – Reference to the Court – National court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty – Definition – Body competent to hear appeals concerning the award of public . .
CitedSteenhorst-Neerings v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor Detailhandel, Ambachten en Huisvrouwen ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Europa Community law does not preclude the application of a national rule of law according to which benefits for incapacity for work are payable no more than one year before the date of claim, in the case where . .
CitedBrasserie du Pecheur v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and others (4) ECJ 5-Mar-1996
Member states may be liable to individuals for their failure to implement EU laws. The right of individuals to rely on directly applicable provisions of the EC Treaty before national courts is not sufficient in itself to ensure full and complete . .
CitedElsie Rita Johnson v Chief Adjudication Officer ECJ 6-Dec-1994
Europa Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Directive 79/7 – Article 4(1) – Direct effect – National legislation limiting the period prior to the bringing of a claim . .
CitedInland Revenue and Another v Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc CA 4-Feb-2005
The company sought repayment of excess advance corporation tax payments made under a mistake of law. The question was the extent of the effect of the ruling in Klienwort Benson, in particular whether it covered sums paid as taxation, and how the law . .
CitedAmon v Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd 1956
The court analysed the circumstances under which additional parties might be joined to an action by a defendant, applying a narrow interpretation. The court considered whether a defendant may be added against the parties’ wishes: ‘There are two . .
CitedPickstone v Freemans Plc HL 30-Jun-1988
The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim . .
CitedArgosam Finance Co Ltd v Oxby (Inspector of Taxes) CA 1965
A company which dealt in shares issued an originating summons in the Chancery Division requesting a declaration as to the correct method of computing its income for the purposes of loss relief. The revenue challenged the proceedings as an abuse of . .
CitedIn re Vandervell’s Trusts; Vandervell Trustees Limited v White and Others CA 1970
The deceased had sought to create a trust to benefit the Royal College of Surgeons. The parties disputed its tax effect.
Held: Lord Denning MR said: ‘We will in this court give the rule a wide interpretation so as to enable any party to be . .
CitedJean Reyners v Belgian State ECJ 21-Jun-1974
Europa The rule on equal treatment with nationals is one of the fundamental legal provisions of the community. As a reference to a set of legislative provisions effectively applied by the country of establishment . .
CitedLitster and Others v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd HL 16-Mar-1989
The twelve applicants had been unfairly dismissed by the transferor immediately before the transfer, and for a reason connected with the transfer under section 8(1). The question was whether the liability for unfair dismissal compensation . .
CitedWoolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners (2) HL 20-Jul-1992
The society had set out to assert that regulations were unlawful in creating a double taxation. It paid money on account of the tax demanded. It won and recovered the sums paid, but the revenue refused to pay any interest accrued on the sums paid. . .
CitedRewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord Mbh Et Rewe-Markt Steffen v Hauptzollamt Kiel ECJ 7-Jul-1981
Europa The exemption provided for by regulation no 1544/69, as last amended by regulation no 3061/78, applies only to goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers coming from a non-member country. That . .
CitedEmmott v Minister for Social Welfare and Attorney General ECJ 25-Jul-1991
Europa So long as a directive has not been properly transposed into national law, individuals are unable to ascertain the full extent of their rights. That state of uncertainty for individuals subsists even after . .
CitedKobler v Republik Osterreich ECJ 30-Sep-2003
The claimant’s claim had been presented to the Supreme Administrative Court in Austria, who had referred a question to the ECJ. Following the Schoning decision, the court withdrew the referral, and dismissed the claim. He now claimed damages from . .
CitedMarshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No 2) ECJ 2-Aug-1993
The UK law limiting awards of damages in sex discrimination cases is unlawful, and fails to implement European directive fully. Financial compensation must be at a level adequate to achieve equality between the workers identified. . .
CitedRoquette Freres SA v Direction des services fiscaux du Pas-de-Calais ECJ 28-Nov-2000
Europa In the absence of Community rules on reimbursement of national charges levied though not due, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having . .
CitedRegina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte Michael Bishopp (for and on Behalf of Partners In Price Waterhouse (a Firm)) Admn 18-Dec-1997
. .
CitedPeterbroeck, Van Campenhout and Cie v Belgian State ECJ 14-Dec-1995
It is a basic principle of European Union law that national law should provide effective legal protection, by establishing a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure respect for the relevant European law right: ‘For the purposes of . .
CitedCriminal proceedings against Sanz de Lera and others ECJ 14-Dec-1995
Europa Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) of the Treaty, which prohibit restrictions on movements of capital between Member States and between Member States and non-member countries, on the one hand, and authorizing . .

Cited by:
CitedSharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd EAT 1-Nov-2005
EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence – In an equal pay claim involving a presumption of direct discrimination the genuine material factor defence requires justification by objective criteria.
The . .
CitedTotal Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
CitedBlackburn and Another v West Midlands Police CA 6-Nov-2008
The claimants, female police officers, complained that male officers had received priority payments where they had received none. The defendant said that the payments were justified in achieving a proper aim, namely the encouragement of night . .
CitedThe Bodo Community and Others v The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd TCC 20-Jun-2014
15,000 or more claimants and claims on behalf of children, sought damages at common law and statutory compensation under the law of Nigeria in relation to oil spills from pipelines said to have been caused by Shell Petroleum Development Company of . .
CitedCotter v Revenue and Customs SC 6-Nov-2013
This appeal asked as to the boundary between the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and that of the county court or the High Court, and the legality of the approach which the Revenue took to entries which Mr Cotter, had made in a . .
CitedHM Revenue and Customs v Cotter CA 8-Feb-2012
Mr Cotter’s accountants had submitted a second tax return adding claims to loss relief in the following year. The claims were contentious, but he invited a review by the Revenue asserting that the losses wiped out any liability to tax. The Revenue . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v Cotter ChD 14-Apr-2011
The taxpayer’s accountants had submitted a tax return amending the taxpayer’s own return adding claims for losses. The accountant acknowledged the contentious nature of the claim and invited a review. The Revenue sought now to recover the tax due . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.229067

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd v The Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue And Customs: ECJ 24 Oct 2013

ECJ Opinion – Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Corporation tax – Tax relief – Consortium claim for group relief (consortium relief) – National legislation excluding the transfer of losses within the national territory by one consortium company to another company belonging to a company group to which a ‘link company’ that is also a member of the consortium belongs – Residence requirement imposed on the link company – Discrimination according to the place of the corporate seat – Ultimate parent in third country – Corporate ties passing through third countries

Jaaskinen AG
C-80/12, [2013] EUECJ C-80/12
Bailii
European
Citing:
ReferenceThe Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 19-Dec-2011
Corporation tax – joint referral – FA 1998, Sch 18, para 31A – group relief – consortium – surrendering company indirectly partly owned by Luxembourg company – condition that ‘link company’ must be UK resident or carry on a trade in the UK through a . .

Cited by:
OpinionFelixstowe Dock And Railway Company Ltd v The Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue And Customs ECJ 1-Apr-2014
Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment – Corporation tax – Tax relief – Groups of companies and consortia – National legislation permitting losses to be transferred between a company belonging to a consortium and a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.516981

Swain and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Aug 2014

FTTTx Income Tax – Corporation Tax on capital gains – Whether a claim to add 60,000 pounds as enhancement expenditure to the deductible costs of some let real properties was valid, so occasioning a loss rather than a gain on a part disposal of the properties – Whether there was private use of two company cars available to and utilised by one or both of the directors of the company – whether the capital gains return was fraudulent, and the absence of any disclosures in relation to the asserted car benefits were at the very least negligent – whether penalties were justified and whether they should be adjusted – Appeals substantially disallowed, but allowed in respect of one car

[2014] UKFTT 778 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Corporation Tax

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.535984

The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Dec 2011

Corporation tax – joint referral – FA 1998, Sch 18, para 31A – group relief – consortium – surrendering company indirectly partly owned by Luxembourg company – condition that ‘link company’ must be UK resident or carry on a trade in the UK through a permanent establishment – s 402(3), (3A) and (3B) ICTA 1988 – whether requirement an infringement of EU law that can be relied upon by claimant companies – questions referred to CJEU – whether that requirement cannot be applied against claimant companies by virtue of the non-discrimination article of the UK-Luxembourg double tax convention – whether group relief precluded by s 410 ICTA

Roger Berner, Sir Stephen Oliver QC TJJ
[2011] UKFTT 838 (TC), 14 ITL Rep 394, [2012] STI 285, [2012] SFTD 366
Bailii
Finance Act 1998, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 402(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
ReferenceFelixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd v The Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue And Customs ECJ 24-Oct-2013
ECJ Opinion – Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Corporation tax – Tax relief – Consortium claim for group relief (consortium relief) – National legislation . .
ReferenceFelixstowe Dock And Railway Company Ltd v The Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue And Customs ECJ 1-Apr-2014
Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment – Corporation tax – Tax relief – Groups of companies and consortia – National legislation permitting losses to be transferred between a company belonging to a consortium and a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, European

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.450901

Briggs (Henry) Son and Co Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) v Inland Revenue: HL 21 Dec 1960

Profits Tax – Computation of profits – Dividends received from subsidiary company-Whether profits arising from trade or business carried on by principal company-Whether dividends franked investment income – Finance Act, 1937 (1 Edw. VIII and 1 Geo. VI, c. 54), Section 19 and Fourth Schedule, Paragraph 7.
[1960] UKHL TC – 39 – 410
Bailii
Finance Act, 1937 19
England and Wales

Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.559970

HM Inspector of Taxes v Dextra Accessories Ltd: HL 7 Jul 2005

The taxpayer companies had paid funds into a trust for employees. They sought to set off the payments against their liability to corporation tax. The revenue argued that they were deductible only in the year in which they were paid to the employees.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal failed: ‘the whole of the funds were potential emoluments. They could be used to pay emoluments.’ The words ‘with a view to their becoming relevant emoluments’ apply both to the purpose for which amounts are held by an intermediary and also to the purpose for which they are ‘reserved in the account of an employer’. The taxpayer argued that relevant emoluments were contractually or constructively payable, whereas a reserve should properly be made for potential emoluments because they are payable only upon the occurrence of a contingency; for example, a bonus payable if a certain profit is achieved. If that was a correct description of potential emoluments for which a reserve has been made, it would be equally true to say that amounts held by an intermediary were for the payment of emoluments upon a contingency, namely the exercise of a discretion by the trustees. In both cases, the sums in question may or may not be used to pay emoluments but there is at least a realistic possibility that they will be. There may be some unfairness in this, but that unfairness had been confirmed by Parliament.
Lord Hoffmann stated that although a definition may give a word a meaning different from its ordinary meaning, the choice of words by Parliament should not be wholly ignored: ‘If the terms of the definition are ambiguous, the choice of the term to be defined may throw some light on what they mean’.
Lord Hoffmann considered the meaning of the defined term ‘potential emoluments’, said: ‘In the ordinary use of language, the whole of the funds were potential emoluments. It is true that, as Charles J pointed out, ‘potential emoluments’ is a defined expression, and a definition may give the words a different meaning from their ordinary meaning. But that does not mean that the choice of words adopted by Parliament must be wholly ignored. If the terms of the definition are ambiguous, the choice of the term to be defined may throw some light on what they mean.’
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
[2005] UKHL 47, Times 11-Jul-2005, [2005] STC 1111, [2005] BTC 355, (2003) 77 TC 146, 77 TC 146, [2005] 4 All ER 107, [2005] STI 1235, [2005] Pens LR 395
Bailii, House of Lords
Finance Act 1989 37 43, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 202A 202B
England and Wales
Citing:
At First instanceMacDonald (Inspector of Taxes) v Dextra Accessories Ltd and Others ChD 16-Apr-2003
The inspector sought to disallow charging to current tax period payments made by the employer to an employee benefit trust.
Held: The payments were not made and held by the trustees ‘with a view to becoming relevant emoluments’ within the . .
Appeal fromMacDonald (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Dextra Accessories Ltd and others CA 28-Jan-2004
The company had set up a trust for the benefit of its employees. The Inspector sought to tax the payments made into the trust as ’emoluments’
Held: The appeal was allowed. The payments were ‘potential emoluments’ which were held by the . .
CitedHeasman v Jordan 1954
Emoluments paid under an office or employment are taxed under Schedule E as income of the year of assessment in which they were earned, and it was irrelevant when they were paid. . .
Special CommissionersDextra Accessories Ltd and others v Inspector of Taxes SCIT 25-Jul-2002
SXIT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT TRUST – whether deduction of contributions postponed until taxable as emoluments under FA 1989 s.43(11) – no – whether sub-funds in favour of directors who controlled the company taxable as . .

Cited by:
CitedBarclays Bank Plc and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA 11-May-2007
Retired bank employees had previously received free tax advice. When the service was withdrawn, the bank made a payment. The Revenue said that this payment was chargeable to income tax.
Held: The bank’s appeal failed. The payment was made ‘in . .
CitedRoutier and Another v Revenue and Customs ChD 18-Sep-2014
Executors appealed against rejection of their claim that a gift in the will qualified for relief against Inheritance Tax as being a charitable gift. The Trusts concerned assets in Jersey.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The expression ‘held on trust . .
CitedRoutier and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 16-Sep-2016
Executors appealed against a decision that a residual gift in a will was not charitable and that it was therefore subject to Inheritance Tax arguing that the section if construed in this way was an unlawful restriction on the free movement of . .
CitedRFC 2012 Plc (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) v Advocate General for Scotland SC 5-Jul-2017
The Court was asked whether an employee’s remuneration is taxable as his or her emoluments or earnings when it is paid to a third party in circumstances in which the employee had no prior entitlement to receive it himself or herself.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.228283

Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v CIR: ECJ 12 Dec 2006

ECJ (Opinion of Geelhoed AG) Interpretation of Articles 43 and 56 EC and Articles 4(1) and 6 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States – Tax exemption granted in a Member State to a company established in its territory which received dividends paid by companies also established in its territory – Exemption not granted for dividends paid to that company by companies established in the territory of another Member State
‘ . . where a member state has a system for preventing or mitigating the imposition of a series of charges to tax or economic double taxation as regards dividends paid to residents by resident companies, it must treat dividends paid to residents by non-resident companies in the same way.
[The Treaty provisions] do not preclude legislation of a member state which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, when that state imposes corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident company in which the resident company holds at least 10% of the voting rights, while at the same time granting a tax credit in the latter case for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the member state in which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreign-sourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the member state of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged in the member state of the company receiving the distribution.
Article [63FEU] precludes legislation of a member state which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, where that state levies corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident company in which it holds less than 10% of the voting rights, without granting the company receiving the dividends a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the state in which the latter is resident.
[The Treaty provisions] preclude legislation of a member state which allows a resident company receiving dividends from another resident company to deduct from the amount which the former company is liable to pay by way of advance corporation tax the amount of that tax paid by the latter company, whereas no such deduction is permitted in the case of a resident company receiving dividends from a non-resident company as regards the corresponding tax on distributed profits paid by the latter company in the state in which it is resident.’
C-446/04, [2006] EUECJ C-446/04, [2007] STC 326, [2006] ECR I-11753, [2008] BTC 222, [2006] STI 2750, [2012] 2 AC 436, [2012] 2 WLR 1240, [2006] ECR I-11753, 9 ITL Rep 426, ECLI:EU:C:2006:774, [2007] 1 CMLR 35
Bailii
Council Directive 90/435/EEC 6
European
Cited by:
At ECJTest 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 . .
At ECJTest 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 . .
See AlsoTest Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v The Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs ECJ 19-Jul-2012
ECJ Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU – Payment of dividends – Corporation tax – Case C-446/04 – Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation – Interpretation of the judgment – Prevention of economic double taxation – . .
See AlsoTest Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ECJ 5-Sep-2013
ECJ Opinion – Recovery of national taxes which are contrary to European Union law – Limitation period for instituting proceedings – National legislation curtailing the limitation period with retroactive effect . .
See AlsoTest Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ECJ 12-Dec-2013
ECJ Judicial protection – Principle of effectiveness – Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations – Restitution of sums paid but not due – Remedies – National legislation – . .
See AlsoThe Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 18-Dec-2014
The company claimants had paid large sums in excess tax under a mistake of European law. . .
CitedLittlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
CitedPrudential Assurance Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 25-Jul-2018
PAC sought to recover excess advance corporation tax paid under a UK system contrary to EU law. It was now agreed that some was repayable but now the quantum. Five issues separated the parties.
Issue I: does EU law require the tax credit to be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.374511

Earlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes): CA 1 May 1995

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
Citing:
Appeal fromEarlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-May-1993
In computing company’s tax liability excessive pay not deductible. . .

Cited by:
Appealed toEarlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-May-1993
In computing company’s tax liability excessive pay not deductible. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2021; Ref: scu.80212

Tapemaze Ltd v Melluish (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 24 Feb 2000

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: 08 May 2021; Ref: scu.89708

The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: ChD 24 Oct 2013

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
Bailii, WLRD
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 790
England and Wales

Updated: 05 May 2021; Ref: scu.516970

Fidex Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Apr 2013

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)
Bailii
Finance Act 1996
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal FromFidex 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 FTTXFidex 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 May 2021; Ref: scu.472799

Vodafone Cellular Ltd v G Shaw (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes): CA 20 Mar 1997

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
Citing:
CitedMallalieu 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 fromVodafone 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. . .
CitedMacKinlay (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 by:
CitedDavid 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. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 April 2021; Ref: scu.141693

Heavy Woollen Branch Club and Institute Union Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2012

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)
Bailii, Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970
England and Wales

Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.462802

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.
Ind Summary 08-Jan-1996, [1996] STC 191
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromGlaxo 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 by:
CitedUK 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.80862

Melluish (Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No 3) Ltd and Related Appeals: CA 17 Aug 1994

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
Finance Act 1985
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromMelluish (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. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMelluish (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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.83608

Imperial Chemical Industries v Colmer (Inspector of Taxes): CA 9 Aug 1993

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
Cited by:
Appeal fromICI 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 AppealImperial 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.81606

Franked Investment Income Group Litigation, The Test Claimants In v Revenue and Customs: CA 24 Nov 2016

Sir Geoffrey Charles Vos Ch, Underhill, David Richards LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1180, [2017] STC 696, [2016] BTC 44, [2017] 1 CMLR 37
Bailii
Value Added Tax Act 1994 94
England and Wales
Citing:
At ChDThe Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Another ChD 14-Oct-2015
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 March 2021; Ref: scu.571930

Market South West (Holdings) Ltd v HMRC: UTTC 6 Apr 2011

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
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 March 2021; Ref: scu.440822

JT Dove Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Dec 2010

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)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 04 March 2021; Ref: scu.428211

Helena Housing Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Feb 2010

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
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPrudential 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 . .

Cited by:
At FTTTxHelena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 9-May-2012
helena_hmrcCA2012
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.408925

Finanzamt Linz v Bundesfinanzgericht, Aussenstelle Linz: ECJ 6 Oct 2015

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
Bailii
European

Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.553097

Bayfine UK v Revenue and Customs: ChD 23 Mar 2010

Peter Smith J
[2010] EWHC 609 (Ch), [2010] BTC 467, 12 ITL Rep 935, [2010] STI 1284, [2010] STC 1379
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromBayfine 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 February 2021; Ref: scu.403482

Franked Investment Group Litigation Test Claimants v Inland Revenue and Another: CA 23 Feb 2010

[2010] EWCA Civ 103
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKleinwort 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 fromTest 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 . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromTest 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: 22 February 2021; Ref: scu.401676

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 the registered office of the beneficiary of the dividend under a preventive double taxation
C-540/07, [2009] EUECJ C-540/07 – O
Bailii
European
Cited by:
OpinionCommission 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 February 2021; Ref: scu.374262

Dawsongroup Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Jun 2009

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)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 18 February 2021; Ref: scu.373677

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Unilever Plc and Others: QBD 12 Sep 1994

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
Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 February 2021; Ref: scu.86940

Able (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: CA 22 Nov 2007

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
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLondon 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 fromAble (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 . .
CitedAble (UK) Holdings Ltd v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 30-Jun-2006
. .

Cited by:
CitedHM 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 February 2021; Ref: scu.261448

Test Claimants In The Thin Cap Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: ECJ 13 Mar 2007

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
Bailii, Bailii
European

Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.251136

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 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
Bailii
Capital Allowances Act 1990, Capital Allowances Act 2001
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKay 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] . .
CitedDale (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 . .
CitedSaxone 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 . .
CitedBestway (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 DecidedCrusabridge 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 . .
CitedKilmarnock 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 . .
CitedVibroplant 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 . .
CitedRolls 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 SCITMaco 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 – . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMaco 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 CourtMaco 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.243331

Inland Revenue v J B Hodge and Co (Glasgow), Ltd (In Liquidation): HL 13 Jul 1961

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
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 21 January 2021; Ref: scu.559964

Sempra Metals Ltd (formerly Metallgesellshaft Ltd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners and another: ChD 16 Jun 2004

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
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At First InstanceSempra 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 fromSempra 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.198393

Mellham Ltd v Collector of Taxes: CA 17 Jan 2003

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
Bailii
Taxes management Act 1970 87
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedHanak 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 . .
CitedAries 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 . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromBurton (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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.181110

Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt Steinfurt: ECJ 12 Dec 2002

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
Bailii
European
Cited by:
CitedFoulser 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.178612

Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna: ECJ 26 Oct 1999

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
Bailii
European
Cited by:
CitedFoulser 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 January 2021; Ref: scu.162207

Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Kahn and Another: CA 23 Mar 2000

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
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 112(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 02 January 2021; Ref: scu.147119

Hillsdown Holdings Plc and HF Meat and Foods Processing Pension Scheme Trustees Limited v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: ChD 13 May 1999

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
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 601

Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.81384

Ensign Tankers (Leasing) Ltd v Stokes (Inspector of Taxes): HL 6 May 1992

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
Citing:
AppliedCraven (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 . .
[1989] AC 398, [1988] 3 All ER 495, [1988] 3 WLR 423
CitedW 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 . .
[1981] 1 All ER 865, [1982] AC 300, [1981] UKHL 1, [1981] STC 174

Cited by:
CitedNew 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 . .
Times 08-Aug-03, [2003] EWHC 1876 (Ch), Gazette 02-Oct-03
CitedRevenue 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 . .
[2008] EWHC 63 (Ch), [2008] STC 2079

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.80334

Eagerpath Ltd v Edwards (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 21 May 1999

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
Citing:
Appealed toEagerpath 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 . .
Times 23-Jan-01, Gazette 01-Feb-01, [2000] EWCA Civ 327, [2000] EWCA Civ 328

Cited by:
Appeal fromEagerpath 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 . .
Times 23-Jan-01, Gazette 01-Feb-01, [2000] EWCA Civ 327, [2000] EWCA Civ 328

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.80205

Carr (Inspector of Taxes) v Armpledge Ltd; Same v Fielden and Ashworth Ltd: CA 24 May 2000

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
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 239(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromCarr (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. . .
Times 12-Oct-98

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.78912

Lord Advocate v R W Forsyth Ltd: 1986

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
Cited by:
CitedTehrani 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 . .
[2006] UKHL 47, Times 19-Oct-06, [2006] 3 WLR 699, [2007] 1 All ER 559, 2006 SCLR 879

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.245384

Attwood (Inspector of Taxes) v Anduff Car Wash Ltd: ChD 11 Dec 1995

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
Cited by:
Appeal fromH 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 . .
[1997] EWCA Civ 2128, (1997) 69 TC 575

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.78021

Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 22 Jul 2002

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
Citing:

  • 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 . .
    [1981] 1 All ER 865, [1982] AC 300, [1981] UKHL 1, [1981] STC 174
  • 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 . .
    Times 26-Oct-98, Gazette 18-Nov-98, [2001] 2 WLR 377, [1998] EWCA Civ 1608

Cited by:

  • 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 . .
    [2003] EWCA Civ 1560, Times 27-Nov-03
  • 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 . .
    [2002] STI 1809, [2002] EWCA Civ 1853, [2003] BTC 81, [2003] STC 66
  • 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 . .
    [2004] UKHL 51, [2004] 76 TC 446, [2005] 1 All ER 97, [2005] 1 AC 684, [2005] STC 1, [2004] 3 WLR 1383, [2004] BTC 414, 76 TC 446, [2004] STI 2435, 7 ITL Rep 383, [2004] UKHL TC – 76 – 446

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 December 2020; Ref: scu.174737

Piggott (Inspector of Taxes) v Staines Investment Ltd: ChD 1 Mar 1995

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

Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.84733

Dunlop International Ag v Pardoe (Inspector of Taxes): CA 5 Oct 1999

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: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.80173

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 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
Income Tax Act 1945 8
Cited by:

  • 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 . .
    [2006] EWHC 1832 (Ch), Times 11-Aug-06, [2006] BTC 829, [2006] STI 1919, [2007] STC 721
  • 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 . .
    (1979) 54 TC 246

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 December 2020; Ref: scu.244452

Wimpy International Ltd v Warland: 1988

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.’
References: [1988] SDTC 149, (1988) 61 TC 51
Judges: Hoffmann J, Fox LJ, Lloyd LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • 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 . .
    (Times 11-Aug-03, Gazette 18-Sep-03)
  • 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 . .
    (, [2004] EWCA Civ 391, Times 26-Apr-04)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.185847

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Barclay Curle and Co Ltd: 1969

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.
References: [1969] 1 WLR 675
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • 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 . .
    (Times 11-Aug-03, Gazette 18-Sep-03)
  • 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 . .
    (Times 31-May-95, Gazette 31-Aug-95, Ind Summary 19-Jun-95, (1995) 67 TC 401)
  • 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 . .
    (, [2004] EWCA Civ 391, Times 26-Apr-04)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.185850

Coates v Arndale Properties Ltd: 1984

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.
References: [1984] 1 WLR 1328
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • 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 . .
    (Times 08-Aug-03, [2003] EWHC 1876 (Ch), , Gazette 02-Oct-03)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.185842

Cull v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: HL 1940

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.’
References: [1940] AC 51
Judges: Lord Atkin, Lord Wright
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.573166

Taylor (Inspector of Taxes) v MEPC Holdings Ltd: ChD 12 Jun 2001

The amount of loss available to a company for surrender was restricted to trading losses or capital allowances, and was not to include allowable losses. The sums to be surrendered were those which might appear in a calculation of profits for the period. Therefore allowable losses from previous years activities were not to be brought forward for deduction against chargeable gains.
References: Times 12-Jun-2001, [2002] STC 430
Judges: Rattee J
Statutes: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 403 (7)
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – Taylor (Inspector of Taxes) v MEPC Holdings Ltd CA 20-Jun-2002
    The taxpayer sought to include in the amounts to be set off by surrender against the group’s liability for corporation tax, chargeable gains in respect of allowable losses of a preceding accounting period. They appealed a decision against them at . .
    (Times 03-Jul-02, Gazette 08-Aug-02, , [2002] EWCA Civ 883, [2002] STC 997, 75 Tax Cas 632)

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Taylor (Inspector of Taxes) v MEPC Holdings Ltd CA 20-Jun-2002
    The taxpayer sought to include in the amounts to be set off by surrender against the group’s liability for corporation tax, chargeable gains in respect of allowable losses of a preceding accounting period. They appealed a decision against them at . .
    (Times 03-Jul-02, Gazette 08-Aug-02, , [2002] EWCA Civ 883, [2002] STC 997, 75 Tax Cas 632)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.89732

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Banque Internationale A Luxembourg Sa: QBD 27 Jul 2000

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.
References: Times 27-Jul-2000
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 8, Taxes Management Act 1970, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.85321

Nuclear Electric Plc v Bradley (Inspector of Taxes): HL 29 Mar 1996

The income from investments set aside to cover future liabilities was not trading income.
References: Gazette 09-May-1996, Times 29-Mar-1996
Statutes: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 393(8)
This case cites:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.84383

Manufacturers Life Assurance Company v Cummins (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 22 Nov 2000

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.
References: Times 22-Nov-2000
Statutes: Finance Act 1940 60

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.83390

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Laird Group Plc: ChD 13 Mar 2001

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.
References: Times 13-Mar-2001, Gazette 20-Apr-2001
Statutes: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 706

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.82347

Girobank Plc v Clarke (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 21 Mar 1996

The part use of an industrial building as an office defeats a capital allowance claim.
References: Gazette 01-May-1996, Times 21-Mar-1996
Statutes: Capital Allowances Act 1990 18
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – Girobank Plc v Philip Handel Clarke (H M 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. . .
    (Times 06-Jan-98, Gazette 11-Feb-98, , [1997] EWCA Civ 3061)

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Girobank Plc v Philip Handel Clarke (H M 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. . .
    (Times 06-Jan-98, Gazette 11-Feb-98, , [1997] EWCA Civ 3061)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.80844

Girvan (Inspector of Taxes) v Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd: ChD 3 Apr 1998

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.
References: Gazette 20-May-1998, Times 22-Apr-1998, [1998] 70 TC 682, [1998] STC 567
Statutes: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 64 70(1)

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.80848

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 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.’
References: Times 21-Nov-1995, Ind Summary 11-Dec-1995, [1995] STC 1075
Judges: Robert Walker J
Statutes: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 770
This case is cited by:

  • 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. . .
    (Ind Summary 08-Jan-96, [1996] STC 191)
  • 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 . .
    (Times 10-Mar-04, Gazette 25-Mar-04)
  • 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 . .
    (, [2004] EWHC 2515 (Admin), Times 17-Nov-04)
  • 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 . .
    (, [2005] UKHL 54, , Times 01-Aug-05, [2005] 3 CMLR 2, [2005] STC 1357, [2005] STI 1336, [2006] 1 AC 118, [2005] 3 WLR 339, [2005] 4 All ER 1141, [2005] BTC 402, [2006] Eu LR 131, 77 TC 504)
  • 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.
    ((2010) 174 JP 377, , [2010] EWHC 1704 (Ch))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.80861

Strathedin Properties Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Jun 2018

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
References: [2018] UKFTT 293 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.619364

United States v Apple Sales International and Others: ECJ 17 May 2018

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
References: ECLI:EU:C:2018:330, [2018] EUECJ C-12/18P-I – CO
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.616985

Uppercut Films Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Apr 2018

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
References: [2018] UKFTT 232 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.609291