Brendan McGurk of Monckton Chambers has had an article published in the latest edition of the Tax Journal.

The article is an analysis of the Upper Tribunal judgment in Patersons of Greenoakhill Ltd v HMRC.

The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal for the landfill site operator (LSO) for the repayment of landfill tax paid on the disposal of biodegradable material (biomass), or that proportion of it, from which landfill gas is naturally produced. The decision illustrates that LSOs seeking repayment of landfill tax will have to demonstrate that they did not have an intention to discard material which is the subject of repayment claims. The ruling gives some indication as to the circumstances in which repayment claims by LSOs deriving electricity from methane produced by landfill might yet run.

Melanie Hall QC acted for HMRC.

To view the full article, please click here.

For more information on Patersons of Greenoakhill Ltd v HMRC, please click here.

This article considers the difficulties that member states can face in satisfying the requirements of the EU state aid rules when looking to incentivise investment in energy generation projects.

Key Points

• The UK Government’s efforts to incentivise urgent investments in new low carbon generating capacity are facing difficulties because of the EU state aid rules.
• The twin requirements of “market failure” and “proportionality” are difficult to satisfy when granting long-term subsidies or income guarantees with a view to de‑risking individual energy infrastructure projects.
• A fresh approach may be needed for evaluating EU member states’ interventions in the energy field.

This article was first published by Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law (JIBFL)

 

 

Environment analysis: Is landfill tax payable if the biodegradable material deposited produces gas which is then converted into energy? Discussing the judgment in Patersons of Greenoakhill, Melanie Hall QC at Monckton Chambers advises that for the first time in many years we have an authoritative and well-reasoned decision on the scope, nature and policy objectives of the landfill tax.

This article was first published on LexisPSL

 

Ronit Kreisberger’s recent ‘Pay for Delay’ talk has received coverage in an article on out.law.com.

The article commentates on the ‘Competition Law as a threat to innovation’ seminar held on 1 May.

Please click to view the full Pay for Delay article.

Please click for more information on the seminar.

Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 2013

 

In June 2013, the European Commission issued a package of draft legislation governing procedural rules for private damages actions across the 28 Member States of the EU. This article considers the impact of this legislation and the possible advantages for both claimants and defendants.

UN and EU sanctions are a cornerstone of international diplomacy, but what happens when individuals are wrongly targeted?

Whether a specific tax regime is compatible with European state aid rules turns on the question of whether it is ‘selective’:  does it favour certain undertakings or products over comparable undertakings or products, in a way that is not justified by the nature of scheme?  That question can be difficult to answer in practice.  After ten years of litigation, during which the General Court has itself misinterpreted selectivity, the General Court has outlined a staged analysis that should be undertaken, which focuses heavily on the effects that the tax has and will have in practice.

The Government response to consultation on competition reform (“Growth, Competition and the Competition Regime”) suffers from one “hidden” major flaw, which may be fatal to its objectives. The flaw is the lack of any proper accountability within the new Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in respect of decision making (findings and remedial action) in market inquiries and mergers. It is “hidden” because, unlike other areas such as the removal of dishonesty from the cartel offence, it is not immediately apparent to non specialised readers of the consultation document.

A third party (P) who bears the burden of unlawfully levied tax paid by a supplier (T) to the State may be able to recover the tax from T or the State. The European Court of Justice in Danfoss A/S, Sauer-Danfoss ApS v Skatteministeriet (Case C-94/10) ruled that a defence raised by the State that P has no direct causal link because P did not pay the tax to the State would breach the principle of effectiveness.