Michael Anderson and Ibar McCarthy (Joseph Hage Aaronson) review the recent Supreme Court decision.
In September 2007 I wrote an article in this journal entitled ‘Interesting times’ (Tax Journal 17 September 2007). The House of Lords had just given its landmark ruling in the Sempra Metals Ltd v IRC [2007] UKHL 34 test case in the advance corporation tax (ACT) group litigation order (GLO) which found that in order to achieve ‘full restitution and hence a just result’ HMRC had to pay compound interest where ACT had been paid in accordance with legislation which the ECJ had held to be in breach of EU law. Further litigation has ensued and 11 years later in Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKSC 39 the Supreme Court in overruling Sempra Metals has seemingly brought the compound interest saga to an end...
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:
Michael Anderson and Ibar McCarthy (Joseph Hage Aaronson) review the recent Supreme Court decision.
In September 2007 I wrote an article in this journal entitled ‘Interesting times’ (Tax Journal 17 September 2007). The House of Lords had just given its landmark ruling in the Sempra Metals Ltd v IRC [2007] UKHL 34 test case in the advance corporation tax (ACT) group litigation order (GLO) which found that in order to achieve ‘full restitution and hence a just result’ HMRC had to pay compound interest where ACT had been paid in accordance with legislation which the ECJ had held to be in breach of EU law. Further litigation has ensued and 11 years later in Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKSC 39 the Supreme Court in overruling Sempra Metals has seemingly brought the compound interest saga to an end...
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:
