The Upper Tribunal in GE Financial Investments Ltd v HMRC allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, holding that the treaty’s purpose of preventing double taxation was a key factor in the interpretation of who benefitted from its protections and that HMRC was wrong to suggest that a direct connection to the taxing state was required in addition to worldwide taxation. It upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the taxpayer did not carry on a business in the US, finding that it was open to the tribunal to come to that conclusion on the basis that the taxpayer was effectively a conduit.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
The Upper Tribunal in GE Financial Investments Ltd v HMRC allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, holding that the treaty’s purpose of preventing double taxation was a key factor in the interpretation of who benefitted from its protections and that HMRC was wrong to suggest that a direct connection to the taxing state was required in addition to worldwide taxation. It upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the taxpayer did not carry on a business in the US, finding that it was open to the tribunal to come to that conclusion on the basis that the taxpayer was effectively a conduit.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
fd1ae1d7-5f12-45c6-aad8-046ff6a5e4a1.jpg?sfvrsn=10a131fc_1)
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
