Claims to cross-border group relief: application for reference to CJEU.
The decision in Claimants under Loss Relief Group Litigation Order v HMRC (No 2) (Ch D – 11 February) follows on from the CA decision in HMRC v Marks & Spencer PLC (No. 3) (and cross-appeal) CA [2012] STC 231. 39 companies which had made claims for cross-border group relief applied to the Ch D for a direction that their claims should be referred to the CJEU. The Ch D rejected the applications. Henderson J observed that HMRC had appealed to the Supreme Court against the CA decision reported at [2012] STC 231 and that ‘if the Revenue’s interpretation of the no possibilities test is correct and is ultimately upheld either by the Supreme Court or (following a further reference) by the CJEU then their claims could not succeed even if the group structure...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
Claims to cross-border group relief: application for reference to CJEU.
The decision in Claimants under Loss Relief Group Litigation Order v HMRC (No 2) (Ch D – 11 February) follows on from the CA decision in HMRC v Marks & Spencer PLC (No. 3) (and cross-appeal) CA [2012] STC 231. 39 companies which had made claims for cross-border group relief applied to the Ch D for a direction that their claims should be referred to the CJEU. The Ch D rejected the applications. Henderson J observed that HMRC had appealed to the Supreme Court against the CA decision reported at [2012] STC 231 and that ‘if the Revenue’s interpretation of the no possibilities test is correct and is ultimately upheld either by the Supreme Court or (following a further reference) by the CJEU then their claims could not succeed even if the group structure...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
