Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Comrs (formerly Inland Revenue Comrs) (No 5)
[2014] EWHC 4302 (Ch)
Ch D
18 December 2014
Henderson J
Appearances

Graham Aaronson QC, Tom Beazley QC and Jonathan Bremner (instructed by Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP ) for the claimants; David Ewart QC, Rupert Baldry QC, Andrew Burrows QC, Kelyn Bacon QC, Oliver Conolly and Barbara Belgrano (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor General Counsel and Solicitor to HMRC) for the defendants.

REVENUECorporation taxAdvance corporation taxTax on dividends accruing to United Kingdom parent company from subsidiary in other European Union member stateTest claimants seeking restitution on unlawfully exacted taxesWhether quantum of restitution to be determined

The test claimants were a number of United Kingdom resident companies in the British American Tobacco group in the long-running franked investment income group litigation concerned with corporation tax on dividends. The test claimants sought, inter alia, restitution of sums paid by them under the UK advance corporation tax (“ACT”) statutory regime in place between 1973 and 1999, or under section 18 (Schedule D, Case V) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union ( on 12 December 2013 in the present proceedings ((Case C-362/12); EU:C:2013:834; [2014] AC 1161) meant that the revenue’s attempts to confine the test claimants’ mistake-based claims to those brought within the same six-year limitation period as that which applied to their Woolwich-based claims (Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Comrs [1993] AC 70) had failed. The test claimants were therefore entitled to rely on their mistake-based claims, subject to any available defences, to recover all overpaid tax plus interest dating back to 1973 in some cases. Henderson J subsequently gave directions for the trial of 29 remaining issues of liability and quantification aside from certain issues deferred by the Supreme Court in 2010.

Decision

Henderson J determined the various issues on the calculation of unlawful Schedule D, Case V tax; the calculation of unlawful ACT; other issues of principle; and remedies. It was agreed that claims should not be quantified at the present stage. Further submissions on quantum would be made in consequence of the judgment.

Relevant cases considered
Littlewoods Retail Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs (No 2) [2014] EWHC 868 (Ch); [2014] STC 1761
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2013] EWHC 3249 (Ch); [2014] STC 1236

We use cookies on this website, you can read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. To use website as intended please Accept Cookies