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.

Citations:

Times 13-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 219

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 601

Corporation Tax, Financial Services

Updated: 19 May 2022; 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.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley

Citations:

Gazette 06-May-1992, [1992] 1 AC 655, [1992] CLY 611, [1992] 2 WLR 469, [1992] STC 226

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
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 . .

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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; 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.

Citations:

Times 21-May-1999

Statutes:

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 . .

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; 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.

Citations:

Times 24-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 156

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 239(3)

Jurisdiction:

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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78912

Bradley (Inspector of Taxes) v London Electricity Plc: ChD 1 Aug 1996

A distinction is to be found between the construction of plant and the equipment installed. The Court should examine the function of a structure to decide if it was a plant or a building for allowance.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Oct-1996, Times 01-Aug-1996

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 24

Corporation Tax

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78546

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.’

Judges:

Park J

Citations:

Times 26-Aug-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWHC Ch 1525, [2003] STC 66

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 24(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
CitedMcNiven (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 . .

Cited by:

Awaiting AppealBMBF (No 24) Limited v the Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 6-Nov-2003
The taxpayer, a non-resident, operated a sale and lease back scheme of machinery to be used in its business within the UK. There had been a chain of leases.
Held: The court had first to identify the ‘relevant lease’. It was the head lease . .
Appeal fromBarclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson, HM Inspector of Taxes CA 13-Dec-2002
The taxpayer entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement in respect of a gas pipeline, and sought to set off the costs as a capital allowance.
Held: The company’s appeal succeeded: ‘There is nothing in the statute to suggest that ‘up-front . .
At first instanceBarclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (HM Inspector of Taxes) HL 25-Nov-2004
The company had paid substantial sums out in establishing a gas pipeline, and claimed those sums against its tax as capital allowances. The transaction involved a sale and leaseback arrangement which the special commissioners had found to be a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.174737

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.

Citations:

Times 05-Oct-1999

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 178

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 10 May 2022; 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 ‘

Judges:

Sheil J

Citations:

(1951) 32 TC 487

Statutes:

Income Tax Act 1945 8

Cited by:

CitedRevenue 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 . .
ExplainedCrusabridge Investments Ltd v Casings International Limited 1979
The landlord of light industrial premises sought damages from his tenant for breach of the user covenant in the lease. This permitted the premises to be used, inter alia, as an ‘industrial building or structure’ as defined by the Capital Allowances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244452

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.

Judges:

Lord Wylie

Citations:

(1986) 61 TC 1

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Scotland, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.245384

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.’

Judges:

Lord Atkin, Lord Wright

Citations:

[1940] AC 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Corporation Tax

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.573166

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.

Citations:

[1969] 1 WLR 675

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedShove (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 . .
CitedGray (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 . .
CitedLingfield Park (1991) Limited v Shove CA 31-Mar-2004
The taxpayers sought capital allowances on the costs of installing an artificial all-weather race track.
Held: The track was not either plant or machinery, and the taxpayer was not eligible for the relief. The only reasonable conclusion was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185850

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.’

Judges:

Hoffmann J, Fox LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[1988] SDTC 149, (1988) 61 TC 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedShove (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 . .
CitedLingfield Park (1991) Limited v Shove CA 31-Mar-2004
The taxpayers sought capital allowances on the costs of installing an artificial all-weather race track.
Held: The track was not either plant or machinery, and the taxpayer was not eligible for the relief. The only reasonable conclusion was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185847

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.

Citations:

[1984] 1 WLR 1328

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185842

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

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 293 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 25 April 2022; 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

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:330, [2018] EUECJ C-12/18P-I – CO

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial, Corporation Tax

Updated: 22 April 2022; 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

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 232 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609291

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.

Judges:

Carnwath J

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-1995

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 22 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.78021

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.

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-2000

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Taxes Management Act 1970, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

Corporation Tax, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; 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.

Citations:

Gazette 09-May-1996, Times 29-Mar-1996

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 393(8)

Citing:

Appeal fromNuclear Electric Plc v Bradley (Inspector of Taxes) CA 13-Nov-1995
Income on funds set aside but not allocated for expenditure not trading income . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 April 2022; 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.

Citations:

Times 22-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Finance Act 1940 60

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 April 2022; 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.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2001, Gazette 20-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 706

Taxes Management, Corporation Tax

Updated: 08 April 2022; 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.

Citations:

Gazette 01-May-1996, Times 21-Mar-1996

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 18

Citing:

Appealed toGirobank Plc v Clarke (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 19-Dec-1997
The use of a building for data processing does not qualify it as the subjection of goods or materials to any process and therefore no capital allowance was claimable. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromGirobank Plc v Clarke (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 19-Dec-1997
The use of a building for data processing does not qualify it as the subjection of goods or materials to any process and therefore no capital allowance was claimable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 08 April 2022; 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.

Citations:

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)

Corporation Tax, Income Tax

Updated: 08 April 2022; 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.’

Judges:

Robert Walker J

Citations:

Times 21-Nov-1995, Ind Summary 11-Dec-1995, [1995] STC 1075

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 770

Cited by:

Appeal fromGlaxo Group Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 8-Jan-1996
A transfer pricing direction allowed the Inland Revenue to issue adjustments after 6 years. . .
AppliedClaimants 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 . .
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 . .
ApprovedAutologic 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 . .
AppliedCapper v Chaney and Another ChD 8-Jul-2010
Police had seized substantial sums of cash from the first defendant acting under the 2004 Act. The claimant said that andpound;250,00 was his and sought its return. The Commissioner argued that the current proceedings were an abuse of process.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80861

Revenue and Customs v Investec Asset Finance Plc and Investec Bank Plc (Tax): UTTC 4 Apr 2018

Corporation tax – Purchase by traders of partnership interests and adherence to partnerships followed by realisation and distribution by partnerships of receivables – whether purchase price of partnership interests and contributions to capital of partnerships were capital or revenue expenditure – if revenue, whether incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of traders’ trades – if revenue incurred wholly and exclusively, whether HMRC entitled to raise further issue not in closure notice – whether partnership profits distributed to traders subject to two tax computations

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 69 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608590

Travel Document Service and Ladbroke Group International v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 20 Mar 2018

The tax payers had become involved in tax arrangements later fund to be tax avoidance.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘the materials before the FTT did not justify the attribution of any of the debits claimed by LGI to anything other than the ‘unallowable purpose’. LGI never supplied particulars of what loan(s) it claimed would have been made to it at what rate(s) of interest and for what period(s) had it not adopted the Deloitte scheme. No such details were, for example, given in LGI’s Notice of Appeal to the FTT, which simply contended that ‘the deductions for interest are allowable for corporation tax purposes’ and that ‘the non-trading loan relationship debits should be allowed against trading profits’. Again, Mr Turner’s witness statement said that the Novations ‘could have been replaced by the payment of dividends’, but did not expand on how or, in particular, what (if anything) LGI would have borrowed for the purpose. ‘

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 549

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606480

Merou Papa Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Assessment/Self-Assessment): FTTTx 23 Nov 2017

CORPORATION TAX – application for ‘closure’ notices – para 33 of Schedule 18 to FA 1998 – whether there was a valid enquiry notice under para 24 of Schedule 18 to FA 1998; no – Tribunal has no jurisdiction to exercise – application refused

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 842 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.600968

Landid Property Ltd, Allen (Concrete) Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Sep 2017

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Employment Income – Income tax, PAYE, NICs and corporation tax – Employee Benefit Trusts – whether contributions to sub-funds established for individual employees or loans from sub-funds to those employees constituted earnings for income tax and NIC purposes – whether corporation tax deduction available

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 692 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598979

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.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Mar-1995, Times 07-Feb-1995

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 239

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.84733

Harrydev Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 Aug 2017

(Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other) INCOME TAX – CORPORATION TAX – Sch 36 Notices – reasonably required – higher threshold of ‘reason to suspect’ under para 21(6) -documents required to transfer ownership of land – meaning of failure to comply so as to incur a penalty – Sch 36 Notices partly upheld, partly set aside – penalties upheld.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 616 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592643

Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs: Admn 29 Jun 2017

Judges:

Green J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1476 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoGlencore Energy UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Leave to appeal) Admn 29-Jun-2017
The parties disputed the power of the court to grant leave to appeal against its own decision. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588878

Commission v Italy C-540/07: ECJ 19 Nov 2009

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Free movement of capital Article 56 EC Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement Direct taxation Withholding at source on outgoing dividends Set-off at the place of establishment of the recipient of the dividend, pursuant to a convention for the avoidance of double taxation

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ C-540/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OpinionCommission v Italy C-540/07 ECJ 16-Jul-2009
ECJ (Taxation) Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations) Free movement of capital Article 56 EC Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement Direct taxation Withholding tax on outgoing dividends Deduction to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588172

X v Ministerraad: ECJ 17 May 2017

ECJ Freedom of Establishment – Parent-Subsidiary Directive – Tax Legislation : Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment – Parent-Subsidiary Directive – Tax legislation – Tax on company profits – Distribution of dividends – Withholding tax – Double taxation – ‘Fairness tax’

Citations:

C-68/15, [2017] EUECJ C-68/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:379

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584355

Wereldhave Belgium and Others: ECJ 8 Mar 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Parent companies and subsidiaries established in different Member States – Common system of taxation applicable – Corporation tax – Directive 90/435/EEC – Scope – Article 2(c) – Company subject to tax without the possibility of an option or of being exempt – Taxation at a zero rate

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:180, [2017] EUECJ C-448/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580727

Felixstowe 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 company that is a member of a group which are connected by a ‘link company’ that is a member of both the group and the consortium – Residence condition for the ‘link company’ – Discrimination on the basis of where the corporate seat is located – Ultimate group parent company established in a third State and owning the companies which are seeking to transfer losses through companies established in third States

Citations:

[2014] EUECJ C-80/12, [2014] STC 1489, ECLI:EU:C:2014:200, [2014] BTC 19, [2014] STI 1630

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OpinionFelixstowe 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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580683

Smith and Nephew Overseas Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Feb 2017

(Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Losses) CORPORATION TAX – Change in local currency – Whether accounts comply with UK generally accepted accounting practice – Yes – Whether exchange differences are ‘exchange losses’ – Yes – Whether exchange differences ‘fairly represent’ a loss – Yes – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 151 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578544

Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet: ECJ 21 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation on the under-capitalization of subsidiaries – Inclusion in the taxable profits of a company lending interest on loans paid by a non-resident borrowing subsidiary – Exemption from interest paid by a subsidiary Resident borrowing subsidiary – Equitable distribution of the power to tax between Member States – Need to prevent the risk of tax evasion

C-593/14, [2016] EUECJ C-593/14
Bailii
European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572595

Commission v World Duty Free Group SA: ECJ 21 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Appeal – State aid – Article 107 (1) TFEU – Taxation – Company tax – Deduction – Amortization of goodwill arising from at least 5% equity participation by undertakings domiciled in Spain Undertakings domiciled outside that Member State – Concept of ‘State aid’ – Condition relating to selectivity

C-20/15, [2016] EUECJ C-20/15
Bailii
European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572573

Secil – Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento SA v Fazenda Publica: ECJ 24 Nov 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Free movement of capital – Articles 63 to 65 TFEU – EC-Tunisia Association Agreement – Articles 31, 34 and 89 – EC-Lebanon Association Agreement – Articles 31, 33 and 85 – Corporation tax – Dividends received by a company established in the Member State of the beneficiary company – Dividends received from a company established in a non-member State which is party to the association agreement – Difference of treatment – Restriction – Justification – Efficacy of fiscal supervision – Possibility of relying on Article 64 TFEU in relation to the EC-Tunisia and EC-Lebanon association agreements

C-464/14, [2016] EUECJ C-464/14
Bailii
European

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571882

Morritt Properties (International) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Nov 2010

FTTTx Corporation Tax – Assessment to recover excess group relief – Paragraph 76 Sch 18 FA 1998 – Whether a discovery assessment – No – Whether assessment subject to paragraphs 42-45 Sch 18 FA 1998 – No – Whether agreement under s.54 TMA 1970 – No – Appeal dismissed

[2010] UKFTT 554 (TC), [2011] SFTD 186, [2011] STI 377
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567563

Park Property World Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Nov 2010

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX -out of time appeal against assessment – appellant claimed the collapse in the property market and the inability to raise funds meant it could not deal with its tax affairs properly- permission to appeal dismissed

[2010] UKFTT 617 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567569

Easinghall Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 1 Mar 2016

UTTC Corporation Tax – para 33 Sch 18 FA 98 – application for closure notice – discovery assessment made before enquiry opened – settled by agreement under s 54 Taxes Management Act 1970 – effect of settlement on scope and possible conclusions of enquiry – Olin v Scorer considered

[2016] UKUT 105 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562431

Stanton Ltd v Drayton Commercial Investment Co Ltd: HL 8 Jul 1982

Corporation tax – Chargeable gains – Disposal of shares acquired in consideration of issue of new share – Whether amount or value of consideration the agreed issue price or other value – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, ss 21 and 265 – Finance Act 1965, Sch 6, para 4(l)(a) – Finance Act 1971, Sch 10, para 10.

[1982] UKHL TC – 55 – 286, [1982] Com LR 198, [1982] 2 All ER 942, [1983] 1 AC 501, [1982] 3 WLR 214, 55 TC 286, [1982] STC 585
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559776

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.

Rattee J
Times 12-Jun-2001, [2002] STC 430
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 403 (7)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed toTaylor (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 . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromTaylor (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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.89732

Spring Salmon and Seafood Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 29 Oct 2014

UTTC CORPORATION TAX – appeal in FTTx against amendments made by closure notices – jurisdiction – claim for terminal loss relief – denied in closure notices relating to other years – whether jurisdiction to consider the appeal – no – appeal to Upper Tribunal dismissed

[2014] UKUT 488 (TCC), [2014] BTC 529, [2015] STC 563
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539406

Dock and Let Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Oct 2014

CORPORATION TAX – self assessment – enquiry notice given on anniversary date of day on which return filed – whether notice given within 12 months of day when return filed – meaning of word ‘from’ in para 24(2) Sch 18 FA 1998 – held, ‘from’ excluded day when filed – notice therefore validly given – as a result, taxpayer notice under para 1 Sch 36 FA 2008 validly given as Condition A in para 21(4) fulfilled – appeal dismissed and direction given to supply information as specified in Sch 36 notice

[2014] UKFTT 943 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537671

Beacon Estates (Chepstow) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Jul 2014

CORPORATION TAX – Loss relief – Yacht chartering business carried out on a commercial basis – Whether it was also carried out with a view to the realisation of profits of trade in the accounting periods for the years ended 31 March 2009 and 2010 (as required by s 393A (3) and (4) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) and accounting periods for the years ended 31 March 2011 and 2012 (as required by s 44 Corporation Taxes act 2010) – Yes – Appeal allowed

[2014] UKFTT 686 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535138

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