Updated EU sanctions: Syria and Ivory Coast

30 January 2015
Author: JHA

On 27 January 2015 the EU published updates to its sanctions regimes for Syria and the Ivory Coast.

In respect of Syria, the Council of the EU has re-listed Aiman Jaber, Khaled Kaddour, Mohammed Hamcho and the company Hamcho International under new statements of reasons, following annulment of the sanctions against them by the General Court in November 2014 (Cases T-653/11, T-654/11 and T-43/12). The Council has published the updated Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/117 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/108, as well as a notice pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 informing the listed entities that the controller for data protection purposes is the Council of the EU.

In respect of the Ivory Coast, the EU has published the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/109 and Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/118. This implements the decision of the UN Sanctions Committee of 20 November 2014 to delete Alcide Djédjé from the Ivory Coast sanctions list.

Return to List of Articles by UK Lawyers on Tax Disputes, Tax Litigation, HMRC Tax Appeal Return to Listings
Left Button on Tax Dispute & Tax Litigation Lawyers in London

Our Insights

Insights from UK Tax Dispute Lawyers & HMRC Tax litigation

JHA ranked in top tier again in Legal 500 UK 2025

We are happy to announce that JHA's Tax Disputes Team has again been ranked as Tier 1 by Legal 500 today, a ranking we have proudly achieved every year since we began in 2013. A special congratulations to Graham Aaronson KC who has again been recognised in the Hall of Fame category, Iain MacWhannell (ranked as a Leading Partner) and Mei Wong (ranked as a Leading Associate).

This is the latest successful ranking, following previous top-tier rankings in Chambers UK Legal Guide 2024 and Chambers High Net Worth Guide 2024.

Read More
Insights from UK Tax Dispute Lawyers & HMRC Tax litigation

Armour Veterinary Group v HMRC – Warning for Partnership Personnel Changes?

In this decision, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) dismissed an appeal against discovery assessments which disallowed amortisation relief claimed by the Appellant company for three types of goodwill acquired from a partnership. The decision examined the applicability of each of the circumstances set out in s882 CTA 2009 before concluding none of them had been satisfied. It also provided guidance on the meaning of carrying on a business pursuant to s884 CTA 2009. In rejecting the appeal, the FTT reached a number of key conclusions:

  1. partners can potentially rebut the presumption that individual partners do not own the goodwill of the business (in whole or part) by expressly recording the division in a partnership agreement;
  2. whether a partner is an equity or salaried partner has no bearing on whether they can be treated as carrying on the business for the purpose of s884;
  3. when determining whether and when a partner carries on a business, the FTT will consider, inter alia, (1) if they are in a partnership as per the definition in s1 of the Partnership Act 1890 and (2) their role in the day-to-day running of the practice;
  4. a fundamental aspect of the self-assessment regime is that taxpayers must ensure that they retain adequate records (backed up by an external valuation as relevant in the case of a goodwill transfer) sufficient to support the information provided in their returns, including evidence to support claims made for relief.

Read More

Right Button on Tax Dispute & Tax Litigation Lawyers in London