The Upper Tribunal in GE Financial Investments Ltd v HMRC allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, holding that the treaty’s purpose of preventing double taxation was a key factor in the interpretation of who benefitted from its protections and that HMRC was wrong to suggest that a direct connection to the taxing state was required in addition to worldwide taxation. It upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the taxpayer did not carry on a business in the US, finding that it was open to the tribunal to come to that conclusion on the basis that the taxpayer was effectively a conduit.
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:
The Upper Tribunal in GE Financial Investments Ltd v HMRC allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, holding that the treaty’s purpose of preventing double taxation was a key factor in the interpretation of who benefitted from its protections and that HMRC was wrong to suggest that a direct connection to the taxing state was required in addition to worldwide taxation. It upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the taxpayer did not carry on a business in the US, finding that it was open to the tribunal to come to that conclusion on the basis that the taxpayer was effectively a conduit.
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:
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")