Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message       Back to index       Next message ==>
Sender:
Monica Chowdry
Date:
Mon, 16 May 2005 13:15:48 +0100
Re:
Deutsche Morgan Grenfell v IRC

 

Robert

As far as I understand it, there is little or no reason a group would not choose the delay - there is no benefit in paying the tax early. The reason for the "election" seems to be twofold. First it is part of the IR's trend towards "hand ups" rather than "hand outs". Second, by requiring the election to be made, rather than providing an automatic exemption, the IR receives information on the payment earlier than it would otherwise do so through tax returns and so this increases their own certainty in receipts.

As for the question of whether the tax was "due" - I agree that the tax was in fact not due because no election was made. However, to allow this to prevent the claim poses two problems as far as I can see.

First, the ECJ clearly requires a claim to be possible (further to Metallgesellschaft).

Second, this would provide the IR with far too neat a method of escaping liability in all cases.

 

Best
Monica

On Mon, 16 May 2005 12:24:04 +0100 Robert Stevens wrote:

I have a question concerning Deutsche Morgan Grenfell v IRC. It is a tax question and one I am not competent to answer. Can anyone answer it? (Offlist if preferred).

Under section 247 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 the law is that where a parent receives a dividend from its parent they can make a 'group income election.' If they make the election then Advance Corporation Tax is not payable. If they don't make the election, the Advanced Corporation Tax is payable but is set off against mainstream corporation tax payable later. So making the election means that payment of the tax is delayed.

My question is whether there is any good reason why a company/group which can make the election would choose not to do so? I can see why you would choose to pay later, but why choose to pay earlier?

If you do have to choose/elect before getting the delay, I cannot see how the CA's conclusion that the tax was not due can be correct.

----------------------
Monica Chowdry
Lecturer
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS
Direct Line: 020 7848 1110


<== Previous message       Back to index       Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !