Interest on a Tax Refund Case: C-565/11 Mariana Irime
By Federico M.A. Cincotta
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. The CJEU confirmed its judgment in Littlewoods, stating that where a Member State has levied taxes in breach of the rules of EU law, individuals are entitled to reimbursement not only of the tax unduly levied but also of the amounts paid to that State or retained by it which relate directly to that tax. The CJEU take into consideration the losses constituted by the unavailability of sums of money as a result of a tax being levied prematurely and the duration of the unavailability of the sum unduly levied. This decision affirms the approach in Littlewoods although what the CJEU meant in Littlewoodsremains the subject of ongoing litigation in that case.
This article appears in the JHA April 2013 Tax Newsletter, which also features:
- Exit Taxes: Case C-64/11 Commission v Spain by Federico M.A. Cincotta
- Recovering unlawful “passed on” VAT: ITC v Commissioners for HMRC, 2nd High Court Judgment by Robert Waterson
- Cross Border Group Relief: Marks & Spencer in the Supreme Court by Michael Anderson
An Assessment to Tax is never ‘stale’, but it might be out of date: HMRC v Tooth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.