Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellant) v Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme

Описание: Judgment in the following Supreme Court cases will be handed down on Wednesday 27 April at 9.45am:



Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellant) v Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees Ltd (Respondent) – UKSC 2019/0215
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)


The Respondent is the trustee of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme, a registered pension fund holding a large portfolio of shares in UK and overseas companies. Between 2002 and 2008, the pension fund undertook a large number of "stock lending" transactions, by which it transferred overseas shares to various borrowers on the basis that the borrowers would retransfer to it the same or equivalent shares at the end of a defined term. Where dividends were payable on the transferred shares during the term, the stock lending agreements provided for the borrowers to pay the pension fund amounts equivalent to the value of the dividend. Under UK tax law, these sums are described as "manufactured overseas dividends".



Schedule 23A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Act required some of the borrowers to make a deduction for tax before paying a "manufactured overseas dividend" to the fund. Such deductions were treated as amounts withheld on account of overseas tax, rather than amounts payable as income tax. Because the pension fund was exempt from income tax, it was not able to claim relief in respect of these deducted sums. It claims that the relevant tax rules contravened EU law relating to the free movement of capital by treating manufactured overseas dividend income less favourably than UK manufactured dividend income (in respect of which no withholding tax was payable). The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the Respondent’s claim. However, the Upper Tribunal reversed this decision. The Court of Appeal dismissed HMRC’s subsequent appeal. HMRC now appeal to the Supreme Court.



The issues are:



(1) Whether the UK tax treatment of "manufactured overseas dividends" constituted a restriction of the free movement of capital, contrary to Article 63 TFEU.

(2) If so, whether this restriction was justified under EU law.

(3) If there was a restriction that could not be justified, what is the appropriate remedy.



More information is available on our website.

--



R (on the application of Coughlan) (Appellant) v Minister for the Cabinet Office (Respondent) – UKSC 2020/0129
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)


In August 2018 the Cabinet Office invited local authorities to take part in voter ID pilot schemes. Under these schemes, voters would not be allowed to vote in polling booths unless they had a form of ID on them, such as a driver’s licence. On 3 November 2018 the Cabinet Office announced that a number of local authorities had chosen to take part. The Minister for the Cabinet Office then made orders under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (the "2000 Act") to allow for voter ID pilot schemes in these areas.



Mr Neil Coughlan challenges these orders by way of judicial review. His claim was dismissed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. He now appeals to the Supreme court, seeking a declaration that these orders are unlawful for being ultra vires section 10 of the 2000 Act.



The issues are:



Are the voter identification ("ID") pilot schemes that were implemented in the May 2019 local government elections unlawful?



More information is available on our website.