The decision in HMRC v Marks & Spencer plc(Upper Tribunal – 21 June) is the latest instalment in a long-running saga. A UK company (M) had established subsidiary companies in Belgium France and Germany. These subsidiaries made losses. M claimed group relief on the basis that it should be entitled to set the losses which these companies made against its UK profits.
The Revenue rejected the claim and M appealed contending that the relevant provisions of the UK legislation which prevented an EU-resident subsidiary trading outside the UK from surrendering losses to its ultimate UK parent were a breach of Article 43EC of the EC Treaty. The Special Commissioners rejected this contention and dismissed 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:
The decision in HMRC v Marks & Spencer plc(Upper Tribunal – 21 June) is the latest instalment in a long-running saga. A UK company (M) had established subsidiary companies in Belgium France and Germany. These subsidiaries made losses. M claimed group relief on the basis that it should be entitled to set the losses which these companies made against its UK profits.
The Revenue rejected the claim and M appealed contending that the relevant provisions of the UK legislation which prevented an EU-resident subsidiary trading outside the UK from surrendering losses to its ultimate UK parent were a breach of Article 43EC of the EC Treaty. The Special Commissioners rejected this contention and dismissed 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:
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")