The Court of Appeal in the recent judgment in Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP overturned the decision of the High Court. The High Court had held that under Dicey Rule 3 (‘the revenue rule’) the Danish revenue authority could not bring an action before the UK courts for the recovery of refunds of withholding tax which had been wrongly paid out as a result of the alleged fraud of some of the defendants. The Court of Appeal however held that the ‘refunds’ were not of tax at all but were abstractions of SKAT’s general funds by fraud – and as a result Dicey Rule 3 did not apply. In the authors’ view the Court of Appeal appears not to have understood how the withholding tax refund system operates. Further the court gave insufficient weight to inter-governmental arrangements for assistance in the cross-border...
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
The Court of Appeal in the recent judgment in Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP overturned the decision of the High Court. The High Court had held that under Dicey Rule 3 (‘the revenue rule’) the Danish revenue authority could not bring an action before the UK courts for the recovery of refunds of withholding tax which had been wrongly paid out as a result of the alleged fraud of some of the defendants. The Court of Appeal however held that the ‘refunds’ were not of tax at all but were abstractions of SKAT’s general funds by fraud – and as a result Dicey Rule 3 did not apply. In the authors’ view the Court of Appeal appears not to have understood how the withholding tax refund system operates. Further the court gave insufficient weight to inter-governmental arrangements for assistance in the cross-border...
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
