Italian defeat poses new ECJ questions

Italian defeat poses new ECJ questions

Multi-nationals seek to challenge EU member-state tax laws

There is always a suspicion with big legal cases that only the lawyers ever
win. Multi-nationals seeking to challenge EU member-state tax laws in the hope
of getting millions of pounds back in repayments have cause to ponder the truth
or otherwise of that assertion this week.

At the end of last week, it emerged that the M&S case, key to the loss
relief group litigation order, could return to the European Court of Justice.

Both parties to the action have a different view of the judgment that arose
from the case – and rightly so, according to the judge in charge Mr Justice
Park, who said there was some ambiguity.

The Treasury’s policy of deferring all the potential costs as a result of the
ruling is looking successful. So far it has challenged at every stage of the
GLOs’ respective passages through the European court system.

Separately, and perhaps more importantly for the general direction of tax
affairs, a key opinion on the Italian IRAP case was issued.

The case is a good measure of the extreme impact of the ECJ interventions
into tax. The Italian government had been challenged on a VAT-like tax that it
had introduced. Such taxes were contrary to EU rules, the advocate general
suggested.

The case, should it go in the companies’ favour, would cost the Italian
government E120bn (£83bn). In such a circumstance, the advocate general
suggested the impact of the judgment should be limited to those who had claimed.

What message could one take from that decision? As a government, you might
think it gives a pretty blank cheque to governments hoping to raise tax in
contravention of EU rules, a somewhat perverse incentive.

As a company, it seems to encourage all those involved with UK GLOs, for
which quite large sums are also at stake, to initiate legal proceedings as soon
as possible to avoid such a temporal limitation too.

The question corporates will be asking is – is it worth it? With the M&S
case unsettled and the ECJ declining to wade in, many will wonder whether they
are simply pouring money into lawyers’ pockets.

Related Articles

Paul Morton, Tax Director, Office of Tax Simplification

Administration Paul Morton, Tax Director, Office of Tax Simplification

6m Emma Smith, Managing Editor
LITRG urges government to consider tax changes in disability work plan

Administration LITRG urges government to consider tax changes in disability work plan

7m Lucy Skoulding, Reporter
HMRC appeal rejected in Tottenham Hotspur case

Administration HMRC appeal rejected in Tottenham Hotspur case

8m Emma Smith, Managing Editor
HMRC issues updated Trusts Registration Service guidance

Administration HMRC issues updated Trusts Registration Service guidance

8m Emma Smith, Managing Editor
New trading allowance: simplicity, but not as we know it

Administration New trading allowance: simplicity, but not as we know it

9m Emma Rawson, ATT Technical Officer
‘Improve rather than lose’ disincorporation relief, tax body urges

Administration ‘Improve rather than lose’ disincorporation relief, tax body urges

10m Austin Clark, Reporter
Are you ready for the Trusts Registration Service?

Administration Are you ready for the Trusts Registration Service?

10m Helen Thornley, ATT Technical Officer
Advisers bullish despite Brexit concerns

Accounting Standards Advisers bullish despite Brexit concerns

2y Fraser Simpson, Reporter