On 25 April, the Commission released the full public version of its state aid decision on the finance company exemptions within the UK’s CFC regime, having announced on 2 April that the exemptions were partially justified under state aid rules. The decision requires the UK to effect full recovery within four months. Within two months, the UK must provide the Commission with a full breakdown of the relevant exemptions granted to individual taxpayers and the amounts of state aid involved.
Following its investigation, the Commission concluded that the finance company exemption constituted state aid when applied to non-trading finance profits from qualifying loan relationships falling within TIOPA 2010 s 371EB (UK activities). The exemption was not state aid when applied to profits falling within TIOPA 2010 s 371EC (capital investments from the UK).
Paul Davison, partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, commented that the Commission’s line on recovery is ‘rather tougher than might have been expected’ given the narrower scope of its final decision. The very tight turnaround time of just two months for the UK government to finalise the amounts and demand repayment ‘seems unrealistic’, he said, ‘given the need for a case by case analysis of where the relevant “significant people functions” were’.
‘It seems that the Commission expects most potentially affected taxpayers to face some level of recovery’, Davison added, noting that the decision ‘quotes extensively from HMRC’s toughly-worded guidance on the likelihood of significant people functions being in the UK’.
Davison highlights the fact that the decision even requires the UK ‘specifically to identify, and justify, any case where a taxpayer has claimed the benefit of the exemption and the facts are accepted as involving no UK significant people functions, such that there is no recovery required’.
In this regard, the decision requires the UK to submit the following information to the Commission within two months:
The decision also sets out the UK’s four main arguments against the Commission’s position. These are:
See bit.ly/2V5zFWw.
Looking at next steps, Paul Davison said: ‘it seems likely that potentially affected taxpayers will need to litigate the decision in Europe (whether or not the UK government does), and to prepare for difficult discussions with HMRC over the location of their significant people functions’.
As for taxpayers deciding on whether or not they should appeal, Davison observed that ‘the clock is not yet ticking’, until the Commission’s decision has been published formally in the EU official journal.
On 25 April, the Commission released the full public version of its state aid decision on the finance company exemptions within the UK’s CFC regime, having announced on 2 April that the exemptions were partially justified under state aid rules. The decision requires the UK to effect full recovery within four months. Within two months, the UK must provide the Commission with a full breakdown of the relevant exemptions granted to individual taxpayers and the amounts of state aid involved.
Following its investigation, the Commission concluded that the finance company exemption constituted state aid when applied to non-trading finance profits from qualifying loan relationships falling within TIOPA 2010 s 371EB (UK activities). The exemption was not state aid when applied to profits falling within TIOPA 2010 s 371EC (capital investments from the UK).
Paul Davison, partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, commented that the Commission’s line on recovery is ‘rather tougher than might have been expected’ given the narrower scope of its final decision. The very tight turnaround time of just two months for the UK government to finalise the amounts and demand repayment ‘seems unrealistic’, he said, ‘given the need for a case by case analysis of where the relevant “significant people functions” were’.
‘It seems that the Commission expects most potentially affected taxpayers to face some level of recovery’, Davison added, noting that the decision ‘quotes extensively from HMRC’s toughly-worded guidance on the likelihood of significant people functions being in the UK’.
Davison highlights the fact that the decision even requires the UK ‘specifically to identify, and justify, any case where a taxpayer has claimed the benefit of the exemption and the facts are accepted as involving no UK significant people functions, such that there is no recovery required’.
In this regard, the decision requires the UK to submit the following information to the Commission within two months:
The decision also sets out the UK’s four main arguments against the Commission’s position. These are:
See bit.ly/2V5zFWw.
Looking at next steps, Paul Davison said: ‘it seems likely that potentially affected taxpayers will need to litigate the decision in Europe (whether or not the UK government does), and to prepare for difficult discussions with HMRC over the location of their significant people functions’.
As for taxpayers deciding on whether or not they should appeal, Davison observed that ‘the clock is not yet ticking’, until the Commission’s decision has been published formally in the EU official journal.