In Jazztel (as Test Claimant for GLO issues 9A and 9B) v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 1301 (24 July 2019) upholding the High Court’s decision the Court of Appeal found that claimants under a GLO whose cases were stayed behind an ongoing test case were prevented from obtaining interim relief by FA 2013 s 234.
The CJEU had ruled that the imposition of a higher rate of SDRT on the issue of shares into clearance and depositary services was in breach of EU law. A number of taxpayers had brought claims against HMRC for recovery of SDRT paid and under the GLO Jazztel had been selected as test claimant.
The appeal concerned issues 9A and 9B of the GLO which both related to HMRC’s limitation defence. The High Court had found in favour of HMRC on issue 9A...
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 Jazztel (as Test Claimant for GLO issues 9A and 9B) v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 1301 (24 July 2019) upholding the High Court’s decision the Court of Appeal found that claimants under a GLO whose cases were stayed behind an ongoing test case were prevented from obtaining interim relief by FA 2013 s 234.
The CJEU had ruled that the imposition of a higher rate of SDRT on the issue of shares into clearance and depositary services was in breach of EU law. A number of taxpayers had brought claims against HMRC for recovery of SDRT paid and under the GLO Jazztel had been selected as test claimant.
The appeal concerned issues 9A and 9B of the GLO which both related to HMRC’s limitation defence. The High Court had found in favour of HMRC on issue 9A...
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:
