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. Advocate-General Kokott expressed the Opinion that it was a restriction on the freedom of establishment ‘for a Member State to prevent the surrender of the losses incurred in that Member State by a resident permanent establishment of a non-resident company to a resident company...
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. Advocate-General Kokott expressed the Opinion that it was a restriction on the freedom of establishment ‘for a Member State to prevent the surrender of the losses incurred in that Member State by a resident permanent establishment of a non-resident company to a resident company...
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:
