The Vodafone case

Sir Andrew Park’s overall conclusion is that the settlement reached was a good one and represented fair value for the wider taxpaying community. Had the Department not reached a settlement, the case would have gone to litigation. In Sir Andrew Park’s opinion, company D had a good chance of winning both of its two arguments: the motive test defence and the Cadbury Schweppes defence. If it had won on either of these, the outcome would have been that it had no tax liability at all relating to subsidiary D’s interest income.

As we\’ve been saying all along.

EU law trumps UK law. Vodafone had a very good chance of winning in court making the settlement a good one.

Further:

Company D was only one of several major companies that had long-running disputes with the Department over the application of the controlled foreign companies provisions.

HMRC therefore didn\’t face the (some say) 100 companies lining up behind Vodafone on the same issue. Face themv having lost that major case that is.

2 thoughts on “The Vodafone case”

  1. Isn’t this obvious – if you aren’t criminally stupid ? Ten minutes reading about Vodaphone/Barclays/etc. just tells you the Graun has the economic knowledge of half a brick.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *