Value added tax Output tax. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing an appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners, held that the First-tier Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (FTT) had not erred in law in its approach to the question before it, namely by holding that the correct approach, when determining the nature of a supply for VAT purposes, was to look not only at all the various contractual documents but also at 'the behaviour of [the taxpayer].' The decision of the FTT that the taxpayer was required to account to the United Kingdom tax authorities for VAT in respect of its supply of a 'designated travel service' within the meaning of art3(1) of the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) Order 1987 would be restored.
Income tax Loss relief. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) upheld a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to refuse tax relief to the taxpayer, who had invested substantial sums into a college.
Income tax Corporation tax. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing an appeal by the taxpayer company, upheld the finding that it had not been party to transactions for the lending of money within the meaning of s81 of the so as to entitle it to claim a deduction in its corporation tax computation for the relevant period.
European Union Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the context of application of the judgment of 12 December 2006 in Case : Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation All ER (D) 168 (Dec)and was designed to obtain clarification regarding various paragraphs of that judgment.
Value added tax Input tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on the interpretation of art 17(5)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77-388 (on the harmonization of the laws of the member states relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment) with respect to the apportionment criterion for apportioning the input tax on the construction of a mixed-use building.
Stamp duty land tax Return. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), in dismissing the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against an earlier decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), held, inter alia, that a sub-sale of a head leasehold interest by a company to a partnership (of which the company owned 98%) was subject to stamp duty land tax liability of nil.
Income tax Emoluments. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) held that an employees remuneration trust created for the benefit of the executives of the Murray Group and the footballers of Rangers Football Club which was owned by the Murray Group, were valid and subsisting and that sums advanced to the employees of the group, by way of loans had been made in pursuance of discretionary powers and remained recoverable and represented debts on their estates. Accordingly, the appeal against the disputed assessments would be allowed.
European Union Taxation. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 11(1) of Council Directive (EEC) 90-434 (on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different member states) in proceedings between the parties concerning the grant of tax advantages applicable to a division within the taxpayer company under which part of its undertaking would be transferred to a new company.
Income tax Double taxation relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that there had been discrimination against a UK-based subsidiary company, which had sought double taxation relief, on the ground that its parent company had been a US-based company, and that that discrimination had not been because the parent company had not been liable to pay UK corporation tax.
Tax Appeal. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) having reviewed the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) in respect of two schemes designed to deliver bonuses to their employees whilst also avoiding income tax and national insurance contributions, held that the first appellant, UBS AG, had achieved the objective by operation of its scheme, whilst the second appellant, DB Group Services (UK) Ltd, had failed to achieve the objective by operation of its scheme.