The recent Upper Tribunal decision in VolkerRail demonstrates some of the practical difficulties with the interpretation and application of CJEU jurisprudence for tax disputes grounded on breaches of EU law for pre-Brexit years. Unlike the FTT, the UT was willing to infer that the CJEU’s judgment in HMRC v Philips Electronics UK Ltd was superseded by its later judgment in NN A/S v Skatteministeriet, despite any clear expression by the CJEU in NN of its intention to overrule or otherwise depart from its previous decision in Philips.
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:
The recent Upper Tribunal decision in VolkerRail demonstrates some of the practical difficulties with the interpretation and application of CJEU jurisprudence for tax disputes grounded on breaches of EU law for pre-Brexit years. Unlike the FTT, the UT was willing to infer that the CJEU’s judgment in HMRC v Philips Electronics UK Ltd was superseded by its later judgment in NN A/S v Skatteministeriet, despite any clear expression by the CJEU in NN of its intention to overrule or otherwise depart from its previous decision in Philips.
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:
667cd153-8214-43cb-8f7f-534be9fe74c0.jpg?sfvrsn=9ba5c762_1)
