In HMRC v Sunico ApS (and related appeals) (CJEU Case C-49/12) HMRC had formed the opinion that three Danish companies had participated in a MTIC fraud. They took proceedings against the companies in the Danish courts. The Danish High Court (Østre Landsret) referred the case to the CJEU for a ruling on whether the proceedings were within the scope of EC Regulation 44/2001. Advocate-General Kokott upheld HMRC’s contention that the proceedings were within that regulation.
Why it matters: The Advocate General upheld HMRC’s contention that the proceedings which it had begun were within the scope of EC Regulation 44/2001. HMRC has also taken proceedings in the High Court where Proudman J delivered judgment in favour of HMRC on Friday 19 April. (The full text of her judgment was not available at the time of writing.)
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:
In HMRC v Sunico ApS (and related appeals) (CJEU Case C-49/12) HMRC had formed the opinion that three Danish companies had participated in a MTIC fraud. They took proceedings against the companies in the Danish courts. The Danish High Court (Østre Landsret) referred the case to the CJEU for a ruling on whether the proceedings were within the scope of EC Regulation 44/2001. Advocate-General Kokott upheld HMRC’s contention that the proceedings were within that regulation.
Why it matters: The Advocate General upheld HMRC’s contention that the proceedings which it had begun were within the scope of EC Regulation 44/2001. HMRC has also taken proceedings in the High Court where Proudman J delivered judgment in favour of HMRC on Friday 19 April. (The full text of her judgment was not available at the time of writing.)
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:
