Simon Davis Head of the Outward Investment team in HMRC's Business International outlines HMRC's view of the broad consequences of the recent Vodafone 2 decision
On 22 May 2009 the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Vodafone 2. In Issue 983 of The Tax Journal KPMG's International Tax Services team commented on the decision. This article represents HMRC's initial observations.
The point at issue was whether HMRC should be directed to issue a closure notice in respect of an enquiry into the CFC status of Vodafone 2's subsidiary Vodafone Investments Luxembourg Sarl (VIL). Vodafone 2 argued that it should on the grounds that the enquiry was unreasonable since the CFC legislation was incompatible with EU law.
In Cadbury Schweppes the ECJ held that:
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
Simon Davis Head of the Outward Investment team in HMRC's Business International outlines HMRC's view of the broad consequences of the recent Vodafone 2 decision
On 22 May 2009 the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Vodafone 2. In Issue 983 of The Tax Journal KPMG's International Tax Services team commented on the decision. This article represents HMRC's initial observations.
The point at issue was whether HMRC should be directed to issue a closure notice in respect of an enquiry into the CFC status of Vodafone 2's subsidiary Vodafone Investments Luxembourg Sarl (VIL). Vodafone 2 argued that it should on the grounds that the enquiry was unreasonable since the CFC legislation was incompatible with EU law.
In Cadbury Schweppes the ECJ held that:
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
