Exit Taxes
The CJEU, following recent case law, concluded that the Danish rules on exit taxation of cross-border transfers of assets within a company are contrary to the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 49 TFEU.
Read More
Portfolio Dividend Claims: High Court Trial Concludes
The hearing dealt with issues arising out of corporation tax charges on foreign-source portfolio dividends, ACT charges on their onward payment and a number of issues specific to life assurance and pension business, as well as remedies, including the availability of compound interest, and HMRC’s contention that unlawful tax paid under a mistake could not be recovered where the UK had applied its tax revenues against government expenditure (“the change of position” defence). Judgment has been reserved.
Read More
FII GLO 3rd ECJ reference
The reference concerned whether the retrospective reduction in the limitation period for mistake claims issued on or after 8 September 2003 (s320 FA 04) offended EU rights.
Read More
Retrospective Changes to rules on interim payment applications in tax cases
A last minute amendment to the Finance Bill 2013 announced on 26 June 2013 has significantly limited the ability to make an interim payment application in High Court proceedings for repayment of tax.
Read More
ROSIIP GLO: Taxpayers succeed
The ROSIIP GLO concerned the imposition of a 55% tax charges against pension-holders who had transferred their UK pensions into the Singapore ROSIIP Pension Fund. The pension holders argued that HMRC could not impose the tax charges against them because they had obtained a legitimate expectation from HMRC that they would not be subject to tax on their transfers.
Read More
M&S and the ‘no possibilities’ test
Claims for group relief for the losses of companies in the group in other EU Member States must meet the condition that the possibilities for past, present and future use of the losses locally must be exhausted. The Supreme Court has concluded, in the latest stage of the M&S case, that the date upon which that condition must be met is the date of the claim and not, as HMRC has advocated, the end of the accounting period in which the loss was incurred. Steps taken by taxpayers, such as the liquidation of the loss making subsidiary, will not exclude the making of a claim. Originally printed in Tax Journal on 24 May 2013.
Read More
Cross Border Group Relief: Supreme Court Judgment in Marks & Spencer
Today the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the principal remaining issue in the M&S case. It has found unanimously in favour of the taxpayer.
Read More
Common law remedies available in VAT cases where s.80 has been ousted by the effect of EU law.
Robert Waterson, Senior Associate at Hage Aaronson explains why the Further Judgment in ITC is good news for taxpayers who suffered unlawfully levied VAT but had no direct right of action against HMRC under s.80 VATA.
Read More
Cross Border Group Relief: Marks & Spencer in the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court hearing took place on 15 April 2013 in the Marks & Spencer group relief case. The hearing dealt only with the question of when the no possibilities test should be assessed (at the end of the accounting period in which the losses arose or at the date of the claim).
Read More
Recovering unlawful “passed on” VAT: ITC v Commissioners for HMRC, 2nd High Court Judgment
The ITC case concerns the recovery by Investment Trust Companies of unlawfully levied VAT paid on services supplied to them by their management companies. The Managers were able only to recover the VAT they had passed on to HMRC on these services net of input tax deductions. The ITC case concerned the irrecoverable residual sum of VAT to which the ITCs remained out of pocket.
Read More