UK: Marks & Spencer vs UK Government - and the winner is

Last Updated: 21 April 2005
Article by Mark Nichols
This article is part of a series: Click Marks & Spencer: A win for the taxpayer or a win for the Government? for the previous article.

7 April 2005 may well go down in the annals of UK tax history as a very significant day. It was the day the (first) Finance Act of 2005 received Royal Assent. It was also the day that Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered not one but two important and much awaited opinions concerning references from the UK courts. To view an article concerning one of those opinions – Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) Case C-446/03 – please see below:


Full Article

7 April 2005 may well go down in the annals of UK tax history as a very significant day. It was the day the (first) Finance Act of 2005 received Royal Assent. It was also the day that Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered not one but two important and much awaited opinions concerning references from the UK courts. This article concerns one of those opinions – Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) Case C-446/03.

The very brief facts of the appeal are that M&S operated in several European jurisdictions through local subsidiaries. These subsidiaries were owned by the M&S UK parent company. The subsidiaries were loss making, but the parent was profitable. M&S made a group relief claim to the Inland Revenue to allow it to set the losses of its foreign subsidiaries against the profits of the UK parent. It is relevant that at the time of the claims M&S was in the process of either selling off or discontinuing the operations of its loss making foreign subsidiaries. The Inland Revenue refused the group relief claim on the grounds that relief is not available for subsidiaries, which are neither resident nor trade in the UK.

To say that the reaction of the ECJ has been keenly awaited is something of an understatement. If M&S win, the estimated cost to the Treasury of tax refunds runs to hundreds of millions or even billions of pounds and the UK group relief system will have to be changed or even scrapped. As befits such an important case, the 84 paragraph opinion of the AG is fairly weighty.

So who won?

The reaction of many commentators has been that the AG found in favour of M&S, but our view is that the governments of the member states are the real winners. The reason for this is that while M&S won their argument that the group relief rules are discriminatory, the AG found that discrimination could be justified for the majority of M&S' losses.

The AG achieved this result by agreeing with the taxpayer that the current group relief system was discriminatory, but concluding that the system would be acceptable if it provided that group relief was only to be disallowed where the foreign subsidiary was able either to transfer the losses to another legal person or carry them forward to other financial years in the state of establishment. This suggests that only fairly minor changes are required to the UK's existing legislation in order to make it EU compliant.

The reasoning of the AG is extremely interesting and a few points should be noted:

  1. When analysing the grounds on which discrimination can be justified the AG found the state of the court's case law to be regrettably unclear. The AG cited the well reasoned opinion in Danner (C136/00) where AG Jacobs argued that it is inappropriate to have different grounds of justification depending on whether the measure is directly or indirectly discriminatory. This would be a sensible simplification.
  2. The freedom of establishment does not preclude discrimination between subsidiaries and permanent establishments where this difference in treatment applies domestically. Cases such as Commission v France, Royal Bank of Scotland and Saint Gobain are distinguished as actually relating to place of residence.
  3. The territoriality principle in Futura does not apply here because the UK exercises an unlimited right to tax the global profits of the UK parent. Consequently the UK cannot limit the UK parent's right to a tax advantage connected with the transfer of losses. This is an expected reading of Futura by the AG, but nonetheless many readers will justifiably find it puzzling that in Futura the Luxembourg authorities were permitted to refuse loss relief on the grounds that they did not tax the corresponding profits, whereas in this case the UK cannot refuse loss relief notwithstanding that any profits of the subsidiaries would have been outside the scope of UK tax.
  4. The approach to the Bachmann doctrine is unexpected. The defence of cohesion has been narrowed and eroded by previous ECJ case law to the point where most commentators expected the AG to dismiss it here. However, although the UK did not succeed in justifying the existing group relief rules on Bachmann grounds, the AG did accept firstly that Bachmann should not be limited to situations where the issues involve the same tax and the same taxpayer. Secondly, and more importantly in this case, the AG actually found that a restriction of the group relief rules (to situations where the losses of foreign subsidiaries cannot receive advantageous tax treatment in the state of establishment) was justified on cohesion grounds. This use of Bachmann to justify a restriction of the fundamental freedoms could be a significant step and will give hope to governments and their advocates who are currently engaged in ECJ proceedings.
  5. The Abus de Droit doctrine appears to be gradually creeping into the direct tax sphere. The AG made it clear that a taxpayer cannot rely on the fundamental freedoms for the sole purpose of evading national laws or exploiting differences between those laws (see para 67 of the opinion). It will be interesting to see how this doctrine is developed and used by the court. If the chamber wishes to follow the AG's conclusion but is unwilling to take the AG's approach to Bachmmann, then Abus de Droit may become a central plank of the reasoning of the court. Even if the judges in M&S do not feel the need to consider Abus de Droit any further, it is almost inevitable that the court will have to consider the merits of this approach in the pending Cadbury Schweppes case.
  6. It will surprise few people that the AG found the group relief rules as they presently stand to be discriminatory, however it is worth asking the question as to why this should be so. The opinion begins its interpretation by citing the principle in Schumacker that while direct taxation does not fall within the purview of the Community, the powers of the Member States must still be exercised consistently with Community law. The effect of the Schumacker principle is to allow the ECJ to interfere in matters, which Member States had expressly reserved as being outside of the Community's jurisdiction. If the ECJ follows the AG it will claim that it is interpreting the provisions of the treaty, but surely this interpretation must be called into question when numerous governments have intervened unanimously against a part of the interpretation that the ECJ takes. In this case the Commission even proposed in 1990 a directive, which would have allowed the taxpayer's claim – only to see it shelved for lack of support. Surely this is the best possible evidence that the fundamental freedoms are not intended to have the effect that the ECJ insists on.

There are still a number of questions that remain unanswered by the AG's opinion. It is unlikely that the Revenue will make a statement about its interpretation of the decision before the ECJ hands down its decision in the next few months. One issue, which we will return to when the ECJ gives its decision, is whether those claims within the Group Litigation Order that relate to EU loss making subsidiaries that theoretically may be able to utilise losses in the state of establishment (for example, by carry forward) will be successful. Even for M&S and those companies in a similar position (i.e. the business has been brought to an end) the Revenue might say that only losses in the year that business ceases may be group relieved since prior year losses (where they have been able to carry them forward in the state of establishment) have received equivalent treatment in the state of establishment. The fact that prior year losses cannot now be utilised is the same as it is for UK subsidiaries that carry forward losses; only current year losses can be group relieved. Companies who have not yet filed a protective claim should consider their position carefully in the light of the AG's precise reasoning. We would be happy to assist any potential claimants assess the likely outcome of their specific case.

For the future, it would not be surprising to see amendments to the group relief legislation included in the next Finance Bill, which is likely to be published in May. Any such amendments are likely to seize upon the AG's approval of limitations to the right of an EU subsidiary to surrender losses where the subsidiary may obtain equivalent treatment in the state of establishment (through carry forward of the losses or surrender to another person in that state). It would also be surprising given the sums of money at stake if we do not see further litigation to clarify the scope of the AG's comments (assuming the ECJ sheds no further light on them).

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 19/04/2005.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

This article is part of a series: Click Marks & Spencer: A win for the taxpayer or a win for the Government? for the previous article.
Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions