A/S Bevola Applies Marks & Spencer to the Losses of a Foreign Permanent Establishment
In A/S Bevola and Jens W. Trock ApS v Skatteministeriet (C-650/16) the CJEU applied its findings in Marks & Spencer (C-446/03) to the losses of a foreign permanent establishment, and confirmed that such losses can be deducted from the profits of a parent company based in a different Member State.
A/S Bevola, a Danish incorporated company, had incurred losses in its Finnish establishment which it wanted to deduct from its taxable income in Denmark, but this was refused by the Danish tax authorities. The question before the CJEU was whether Danish law breached freedom of establishment by not allowing the deduction of losses of a non-Danish permanent establishment.
The CJEU held that there was a difference in treatment between a Danish company with a foreign permanent establishment and one with a Danish permanent establishment. This difference in treatment amounted to a restriction on the freedom of establishment as the two situations were objectively comparable. The court observed that the decision in Marks & Spencer on the losses of foreign subsidiaries was also applicable to the definitive losses of permanent establishments. It was contrary to EU law to exclude the possibility for a resident parent company of deducting losses incurred by its non-resident subsidiary, where the subsidiary had exhausted the possibilities of having those losses taken into account in its state of establishment.
This article appears in the JHA June 2018 Tax Newsletter, which also features:
- Fidelity Funds: Danish Withholding Tax on Dividends Breaches EU Law
- Hornbach-Baumarkt v Finanzamt Landau: German Transfer Pricing Legislation Is Compatible with Freedom of Establishment
An Assessment to Tax is never ‘stale’, but it might be out of date: HMRC v Tooth
This article briefly discusses the key points arising out of the decision of the UK Supreme Court in HMRC v Tooth  UKSC 17. The case considered (1) whether a discovery assessment could become “stale” and (2) the meaning of the phrase “deliberate inaccuracy”.
VATA 1994 s.47, Agency, Onward Supply Relief, & Double Taxation
On 12 July 2021, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) released its decision in Scanwell Logistics (UK) Limited v HMRC  UKFTT 261 (TC), rejecting the taxpayer’s claim for onward supply relief (“OSR”).
Whilst OSR is now limited, post-Brexit, to goods imported into Northern Ireland for onward supply to the EU, the FTT’s discussion of agency under section 47 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (“VATA”) is of broader interest.
The case serves as a reminder of the significant financial consequences that can result from errors in tax planning, as Scanwell was ultimately held liable for £5.7 million in unpaid import VAT despite the fact that the imported goods almost immediately left the UK (which, if properly planned, could have meant Scanwell was relieved from liability to import VAT).
Draft Finance Bill 2022—tax avoidance measures
Helen McGhee, senior associate at Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP, considers the draft Finance Bill 2022 clauses published on 20 July 2021 in relation to tax avoidance and recent updates to the tax avoidance regime.
Getting Closer: A Global Minimum Tax on Corporations
On 1 July 2021, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced that countries representing over 90% of global GDP had agreed to a global minimum tax on corporations (“GMCT”). The GMCT seeks to put a floor on tax competition on corporate income through the introduction of a minimum corporate tax of at least 15%. Whilst certain elements give rise to positive expectations, some caveats should be noted. Much will depend on (1) the outcome of future political negotiations and (2) the detail of the drafting at international and national levels.
The DBKAG & K (CJEU) decision: an opportunity for investment funds?
On 17 June 2021, the European Court decided the joint cases K (C-58/20) and DBKAG (C-59/20) regarding whether the supply of certain services constituted the “management of special investment funds”, benefiting from the VAT exemption enshrined in Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC.