Archive for the 'corporation tax' Category

Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel Betriebs GmbH v Finanzamt Linz; Osterreichische Salinen AG v Same – WLR Daily

Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel Betriebs GmbH v Finanzamt Linz; Osterreichische Salinen AG v Same(Joined Cases C-436/08 and C-437/08); ; [2011] WLR (D) 49

“Legislation of a member state which discriminated against portfolio dividends received by a resident company from a company resident in a non member state party to an EEA Agreement, was contrary to the principle of free movement of capital, where that discrimination was based upon a comprehensive agreement of mutual assistance. It was not contrary to article 63FEU of the FEU Treaty for member states to exempt from corporation tax portfolio dividends which one resident company received from another whilst subjecting portfolio dividends which a resident company received from a non member state company party to an EEA Agreement or from a company resident in another member state, provided that the tax was credited against tax payable in the members state of the recipient company and the administrative burdens were not excessive. National legislation which discriminated against dividends received from non member states on the basis of the shareholding held by the recipient company in the non member state company was not contrary to article 63FEU provided the mechanisms in place to off set the charges to tax led to equivalent results.”

WLR Daily, 18th February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2010] UKSC 58; [2010] WLR (D) 333

“When interpreting a deeming provision in a taxing statute it was important not to take the hypothesis further than was warranted. It followed that the deeming provisions in corporation tax legislation on sale and resale ‘repo’ transactions — whereby the parties’ accounts were to be debited and credited on the basis that it was a deemed loan relationship between them — were to be construed so that they reflected the statutory purpose of taxing such transactions on a uniform basis and not so that one party could claim a debit which could be set off against other liabilities.”

WLR Daily, 16th December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Sun Life Assurance of Canada (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily

Sun Life Assurance of Canada (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2010] EWCA Civ 394; [2010] WLR (D) 97

“In calculating the liability to corporation tax of an insurer in respect of its basic life and general annuity business, the taxpayer was entitled to relief in respect of losses incurred in past years, including years prior to 2003, when the law had been amended to make specific reference to the right to carry losses forward in respect of that type of business.”

WLR Daily, 16th April 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Corporation Tax Act 2010

Corporation Tax Act 2010 published

Full text of Act (PDF)

Source: www.opsi.gov.uk

Vodafone2 v Commissioners for Revenue and Customs – Times Law Reports

Vodafone2 v Commissioners for Revenue and Customs

Court of Appeal

“In order to interpret United Kingdom legislation concerning the profits of controlled foreign companies in a way which avoided any unlawful restriction of a taxpayer company’s right to freedom of establishment, conferred by article 43 of the European Treaty, the court was entitled to introduce an additional exception to those contained in section 748(1)(a) to (e) and (3) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.”

The Times, 26th June 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Vodafone 2 v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily

Vodafone 2 v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2009] EWCA Civ 446; [2009] WLR (D) 170

“It was possible to provide a conforming interpretation of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which avoided any unlawful restriction on a taxpayer company’s freedom of establishment, conferred by art 43EC of the EC Treaty, by the introduction of an additional exception to those contained in s 748(1)(a) to (e) and (3) in respect of the apportionment of profits of controlled foreign companies by the additional implication of the words ‘ if [the company] is, in that accounting period, actually established in another member state of the EEA and carries on genuine economic activities there’.”

WLR Daily, 21st May 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Corporation Tax Act 2009

Corporation Tax Act 2009 published

Full text of Act (PDF)

Source: www.opsi.gov.uk

Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – Times Law Reports

Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

House of Lords

“Expenditure on a warehouse which was used for storage of goods which the taxpayer was in the business of importing and selling was not expenditure on an industrial building so as to qualify under section 18 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990.”

The Times, 2nd September 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily

Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2008] UKHL 54; [2008] WLR (D) 281

“The expenditure on a warehouse building which was used for storage of goods which the taxpayer was in the business of importing and selling was not expenditure on an industrial building and therefore did not qualify as a capital allowance under s 18 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990.”

WLR Daily, 1st August 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Tesco tax avoidance schemes can form part of libel case, judge rules – The Guardian

“Details of elaborate offshore corporation tax avoidance schemes operated by Tesco were yesterday allowed to be introduced into evidence in a libel case the supermarket chain is bringing against the Guardian.”

Full story

The Guardian, 30th July 2008

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Vodafone 2 v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily

Vodafone 2 v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2008] EWHC 1569 (Ch); [2008] WLR (D) 228

“Legislation concerning controlled foreign companies (CFC), which relied on ss 747 and 748 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 for its effectiveness, was not compliant with European Community law and must be disapplied so that, pending such amending legislation or executive action, no charge could be imposed on a taxpayer company under that legislation.”

WLR Daily, 8th July 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Bad news for lawyers, but good news for taxpayers – The Times

“How much should big companies mitigate their tax liabilities — both legally and morally? The controversy over Tesco’s tax structuring techniques involving sale and leaseback arrangements with offshore companies highlights a practice increasingly common among large companies. The revelations triggered an outcry about the behaviour of large multinational companies; some even argued that Tesco should ignore such lawful tax planning opportunities and simply volunteer 30 per cent of its profits in corporation tax out of a sense of social responsibility.”

Full story

The Times, 4th June 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Pirelli Cable Holding NV and others v Commissioners for Revenue and Customs – WLR Daily

Pirelli Cable Holding NV and others v Commissioners for Revenue and Customs [2008] EWCA Civ 70; [2008] WLR (D) 48

“The United Kingdom tax authorities had not assumed responsibility for eliminating double taxation on the dividend paid by a UK subsidiary to a parent resident in the Netherlands or Italy in circumstances where the UK had not levied corporation tax on the dividend.”

WLR Daily, 15th February 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Sempra Metals Ltd. (formerly Metallgesellschaft Ltd.) v. Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another – The Times

Compound interest is payable in restitution

Sempra Metals Ltd (formerly Metallgesellschaft Ltd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another

“The court had power to make an award of compound interest in a claim for restitution where such an award was necessary to achieve full justice for the claimant.”

The Times, 25th July 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Analysis: Sempra has rewritten law on debt repayment – The Times

“The House of Lords’ ruling in the Sempra Metals case, while ostensibly about a complicated tax issue, could challenge the foundations of English law on the repayment of debt.”

Full story

The Times, 19th July 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Lords defeat could cost Revenue ‘billions’ – The Times

“Revenue & Customs could be forced to repay “billions” of pounds in tax to UK businesses after suffering a devastating defeat in the House of Lords today.”

Full story

The Times, 18th July 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Revenue to take more litigious line over tax cases – The Times

“Revenue & Customs has officially declared war on tax cheats, telling individuals and businesses hoping for negotiated settlements that it would rather see them in court.”

Full story

The Times, 11th June 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Boake Allen Ltd. v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners – Times Law Reports

Tax statute is not discriminatory

Boake Allen Ltd. v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners

House of Lords

“Section 247 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, by denying companies with foreign parents the right to make a group income election allowing a subsidiary company to pay dividends to a parent company free of advance corporation tax, did not infringe the nondiscrimination articles of the double taxation agreements between the United Kingdom and the United States, or between the UK and Japan.”

The Times, 24th May 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v. William Grant & Sons Distillers Ltd.; Small (Inspector of Taxes) v. Mars UK Ltd. – WLR Daily

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v. William Grant & Sons Distillers Ltd.; Small (Inspector of Taxes) v. Mars UK Ltd. [2007] UKHL 15

“Where the taxpayer companies carried forward in their tax computations the element of depreciation in fixed assets that related to production of unsold stock as part of the cost of unsold stocks they did not infringe the prohibition of deductions for the depreciation of capital assets in s 74(1)(f) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (as renumbered by s 144(2) of the Finance Act 1994).”

WLR Daily, 28th March 2007

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v. William Grant and Sons Distillers Ltd. – Times Law Reports

Computing depreciation of unsold stock for cash.

Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v. William Grant and Sons Distillers Ltd.

“Taxpayer companies that had carried forward that part of the depreciation in fixed assets that related to production of unsold stocks as part of the cost of unsold stocks had not infringed the prohibition in section 74(1)(f) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, as renumbered by section 144(2) of the Finance Act 1994, of deductions for the depreciation of capital assets.

The Times, 2nd April 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.


July 2020
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Categories