The Court of Appeal has upheld SKAT’s claims. Philip Baker QC and Dilpreet K. Dhanoa (Field Court Tax Chambers) analyse whether, from a legal and international tax perspective, this was the correct decision.
Is there a valid distinction between: (a) an action to recover an amount of tax that is due but has wrongly not been paid; and (b) an action to recover a refund of withholding tax which has been wrongly paid out to someone? The context is the rule of non-enforcement of foreign tax debts variously known as the ‘revenue rule’ Dicey Rule 3 and the rule in Government of India v Taylor [1955] AC 491. The essence of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP and others [2022] EWCA Civ 234 (‘SKAT v Solo’) is that there is a valid difference between the two situations. In so...
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:
The Court of Appeal has upheld SKAT’s claims. Philip Baker QC and Dilpreet K. Dhanoa (Field Court Tax Chambers) analyse whether, from a legal and international tax perspective, this was the correct decision.
Is there a valid distinction between: (a) an action to recover an amount of tax that is due but has wrongly not been paid; and (b) an action to recover a refund of withholding tax which has been wrongly paid out to someone? The context is the rule of non-enforcement of foreign tax debts variously known as the ‘revenue rule’ Dicey Rule 3 and the rule in Government of India v Taylor [1955] AC 491. The essence of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP and others [2022] EWCA Civ 234 (‘SKAT v Solo’) is that there is a valid difference between the two situations. In so...
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:
