In Philips Electronics UK Ltd v HMRC (CJEU Case C-18/11) a UK company (P) claimed consortium relief in respect of losses incurred by a UK branch of an associated Netherlands company. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that the effect of ICTA 1988 ss 403D and 406(2) was that P was not entitled to relief for these losses. P appealed contending that the relevant provisions of ss 403D and 406(2) contravened EC law. The Upper Tribunal directed that the case should be referred to the CJEU for a ruling on the interpretation of Article 49 of the TFEU. The CJEU held that what is now Article 49 ‘must be interpreted as meaning that where under the national legislation of a Member State the possibility of transferring by means of group relief and to a resident company losses sustained by the...
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 Philips Electronics UK Ltd v HMRC (CJEU Case C-18/11) a UK company (P) claimed consortium relief in respect of losses incurred by a UK branch of an associated Netherlands company. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that the effect of ICTA 1988 ss 403D and 406(2) was that P was not entitled to relief for these losses. P appealed contending that the relevant provisions of ss 403D and 406(2) contravened EC law. The Upper Tribunal directed that the case should be referred to the CJEU for a ruling on the interpretation of Article 49 of the TFEU. The CJEU held that what is now Article 49 ‘must be interpreted as meaning that where under the national legislation of a Member State the possibility of transferring by means of group relief and to a resident company losses sustained by the...
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:
