Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Refinitiv Limited & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Commissioners for HMRC

[2024] EWCA Civ 1412
HMRC taxed a company for 2018, even though an earlier agreement said they wouldn't use that method for 2008-2014. The court said the earlier agreement only covered those years. Because taxes are assessed year by year, the agreement didn't apply to 2018.

Key Facts

  • HMRC issued diverted profits tax (DPT) charging notices to three UK-resident Thomson Reuters companies totaling over £167 million for the 2018 accounting period.
  • The lawfulness of the notices hinged on whether they were inconsistent with a 2013 advance pricing agreement (APA) between the companies and HMRC.
  • The APA, covering 2008-2014, used a cost-plus methodology for transfer pricing.
  • HMRC argued that for the 2018 period, a profit-split methodology was appropriate for DPT purposes and issued DPT notices reflecting this.
  • The companies challenged the DPT notices, arguing inconsistency with the APA.

Legal Principles

The lawfulness of DPT charging notices depends on whether they are inconsistent with the terms of a prior APA.

This case

An APA is a statutory contract under Part 5 of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 (TIOPA), determining transfer pricing methodology for specified periods. Section 220 of TIOPA dictates that during the APA's term, tax matters are determined according to the agreement, not otherwise.

TIOPA

Corporation tax is an annual tax; decisions from one year do not bind future years.

Caffoor v Income Tax Commissioner [1961] AC 584 (PC)

HMRC's powers do not extend to making binding agreements on future tax assessments.

Al Fayed v Advocate General for Scotland [2004] STC 1703

The interpretation of "chargeable period…to which an advance pricing agreement relates" in TIOPA s.220(1) is to be determined by examining the APA's terms, focusing on the periods for which it makes provisions.

This case

Outcomes

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court held that the 2018 accounting period was not a chargeable period to which the APA related under TIOPA section 220(1). The APA's terms, specifically its temporal limits (clause 9) and the annual nature of corporation tax, dictated that its effect was confined to the specified period (2008-2014). The DPT notices, therefore, were not unlawful.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.