Melanie Hall QC of Monckton Chambers has had an article published in the latest edition of the Tax Journal.
The article is a focus on the AG Opinion in EC v Ireland and the impact that this will have on VAT groups.
To view the full article, please click here.
To view Melanie Hall QC’s online profile for the Tax Journal, please click here.
The hearing of a number of judicial review challenges to the Government’s decision to proceed with a high speed rail link from London to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester started in the High Court today (Monday 3 December). Mr Justice Ouseley will be hearing challenges brought, amongst others, by 15 local authorities located along the route of HS2. The local authorities contend that the Government’s decision to proceed in Parliament by way of the hybrid bill procedure breaches EU environmental law (the EIA Directive), that the consultation leading to the decision was faulty, that the Government failed to comply with its public sector equalities duty and that, in a number of respects, the decision was irrational.
The challenges have been featured in the following press articles:
Kassie Smith is acting for the local authorities.
The Tax Chamber of the Upper Tribunal has released its decision on penalties for late VAT returns and payments and the principle of proportionality. HMRC, represented by Peter Mantle, won the appeal in Total Technology (Engineering) Limited. The decision is an important precedent because the integrity of the VAT surcharge provisions was in issue and grounds on which a penalty can be held disproportionate are considered.
The Upper Tribunal held that there is nothing in the VAT default surcharge which leads to the conclusion that its architecture is fatally flawed. It reversed the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the penalty was disproportionate and had to be set aside; none of the reasons that the First-tier Tribunal had relied on lead to the conclusion that the VAT default surcharge regime infringes the principle of proportionality, or to the conclusion that the actual penalty imposed on Total did so.
After detailed analysis of ECJ and humans right case-law on proportionality, the Upper Tribunal concluded that it is open to tax tribunals to consider individual default surcharges without having first concluded that the default surcharge regime as a whole is disproportionate. The Upper Tribunal considered six features of the regime which might be said to result in unfairness. It concluded that there must be some upper limit on the penalty for a default which was proportionate, although it was not sensible for the Upper Tribunal, in this case, to suggest where that might be. The other features examined did not result in the regime failing to comply with the principle of proportionality at the level of the scheme as a whole. The absence of any power to mitigate the penalty was not such a flaw. On the facts of a particular case, a tribunal might be able to conclude that the penalty is disproportionate. But in assessing whether the penalty in any particular case is disproportionate, the tax tribunal must be astute not to substitute its own view of what is fair for the penalty which Parliament has imposed. The tribunal should show the greatest deference to the will of Parliament when considering the application of the VAT default surcharge scheme.
To view the decision, please click here.
Monckton Chambers warmly congratulates Anneli Howard who, following an open competition, has been appointed as Standing Counsel to the Civil Aviation Authority.
The Civil Aviation Bill, currently before Parliament and due to receive Royal Assent by the end of the year, will confer on the CAA new and more flexible economic regulatory functions in relation to airports including powers under the Competition Act 1998, the Enterprise Act 2002 as well as Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. Anneli will advise the CAA on the exercise of its investigatory powers, regulation of airports and operators as well as its responsibilities under EU regulatory rules in the aviation sector.
Anneli is honoured to accept the appointment, which builds upon her extensive experience in UK and EU competition law and regulatory policy. Listed as one of the top 100 Women in Antitrust by Global Competition Review, Anneli is widely recognised as a leading junior in EU law and competition law. Described by Chambers UK as “a client’s dream counsel – a real class act“, Anneli is “a fine choice for when methodical and alert competition assistance is required“.
Sub One v HMRC, in which Melanie Hall QC and Ewan West of Monckton Chambers represented HMRC, is a featured case in this week’s edition of ‘The Lawyer.’
In Sub One v HMRC, The Hon Mr Justice Arnold rejected a challenge made by 1,200 hot food outlets to the UK legislation on VAT payable on hot takeaway food. The outlets argued that the legislation, introduced by Thatcher, was contrary to EU law because it inevitably meant that hot food outlets were taxed differently depending on what was in the mind of the supplier when the food was heated. The Judge disagreed. The legislation did not breach EU law. He concluded that it was perfectly possible to assess the purpose for which food has been heated above ambient air temperature in a way that did not create inequality between competing food outlets.
To read the full article, please click here.
Advocate General Jääskinen released his opinion today in Case C-85/11 EC v Ireland. He has concluded that the practice of permitting non-taxable persons to be members of a VAT Group does not infringe the Principal VAT Directive or any EU principle. The Irish case was heard at the same time as Case C-86/11 EC v UK and other similar infraction proceedings brought by the Commission against the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. The European Court asked for only one opinion to be produced ahead of its judgment on the basis that the same point of principle arises in each case. This opinion therefore applies equally to the VAT Act and HMRC’s long-held practice of allowing non-taxable persons to belong to VAT groups. Judgment is expected in 2013. Given the robust and comprehensive opinion of the Advocate General, taxpayers can feel confident of a favourable outcome.
Melanie Hall QC represented the UK in the UK proceedings and intervened in support of Ireland. All UK arguments have been accepted by the Advocate General.
Click to view the judgment in EC v IRELAND
Click here to view our case note.
Sub One v HMRC, in which Melanie Hall QC and Ewan West of Monckton Chambers represented HMRC, is a featured case in this week’s edition of ‘The Lawyer.’
In Sub One v HMRC, The Hon Mr Justice Arnold rejected a challenge made by 1,200 hot food outlets to the UK legislation on VAT payable on hot takeaway food. The outlets argued that the legislation, introduced by Thatcher, was contrary to EU law because it inevitably meant that hot food outlets were taxed differently depending on what was in the mind of the supplier when the food was heated. The Judge disagreed. The legislation did not breach EU law. He concluded that it was perfectly possible to assess the purpose for which food has been heated above ambient air temperature in a way that did not create inequality between competing food outlets.
To read the full article, please click here.
The new Supreme Court encourages visitors to the Court. Those who visit come away with a variety of impressions of the highest court in the land. In this post on the Supreme Court’s blog, artist Isobel Williams reflects on her visit to the Court last July at O’Brien v Ministry of Justice and during the appeal of BCL Old Co Limited and others v BASF plc and others.
For Supreme Court blog please click here.
Peter Mantle, representing the OFT, successfully defended the penalty imposed on MCO Capital Ltd anti-money laundering breaches.
The First-tier Tribunal in its decision of 7 November 2012 agreed with the arguments advanced by the OFT on the merits and technical issues. It approved the OFT’s formulation and implementation of its Interim Penalty Policy in the first money laundering penalty appeal brought by a consumer credit lender.
MCO’s appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
‘International Charitable Giving,’ a book with contributions by Philip Moser QC and Raymond Hill, is published this week.
‘International Charitable Giving’ provides comprehensive treatment of cross-border charitable giving and an extensive analysis of the broader and jurisdiction-specific issues surrounding international giving. The book contains a range of jurisdiction-specific chapters, enabling easy comparison of the various legal systems and is written by a team of expert practitioners from leading global firms, offering accurate and authoritative information.
Philip Moser QC and Raymond Hill co-authored the ‘Charities and EU Law’ chapter of the book.
For more information on International Charitable Giving, or to purchase a copy, please click here.
