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
Exit Taxes: Case C-64/11 Commission v Spain
The CJEU concluded that the taxation of unrealised capital gains on assets assigned to a permanent establishment which ceases to operate in Spain does not amount to a restriction on the freedom of establishment.
Read More
Interest on a Tax Refund Case: C-565/11 Mariana Irime
The CJEU has held that it is unlawful for a national system to limit the interest granted on repayment of tax levied in breach of EU law to the interest accruing from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the tax as opposed to when the tax was actually paid.
Read More
ECJ must still answer VAT exemption question for defined contribution schemes after Wheels ruling
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down judgment in Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd and Others v Commissioners for HMRC on March 7 2013. Robert Waterson, senior associate at Hage Aaronson, analyses the ruling and explains why the ECJ still needs to answer the question of whether management services provided to defined contribution schemes could qualify for VAT exemption. Originally printed in International Tax Review Premium, 14 March 2013.
Read More