The Commissioners for HMRC v Applicants in the Post Prudential Closure Notice Applications Group Litigation & Anor

HMRC appeals and cross-appeals largely dismissed.

Taxpayers’ claims, though procedurally flawed according to domestic law, were deemed valid in light of EU law principles of effective remedy and procedural autonomy.

FTT erred in finding paragraph 51 claims valid where there was no mistake in the returns.

Claims were not for DTR under section 790, and section 114 TMA 1970 did not cure defects. EU law principles did not require acceptance of claims.

HMRC should have allowed DTR at FNR when closing enquiries for WHT claims.

A claim for DTR encompasses all types of relief, including credit at the FNR; HMRC was not prejudiced by not having more detailed claims.

Out-of-time amendments to returns were not valid claims for DTR or relief.

Amendments sought to treat income as exempt, not taxable with DTR, and did not fulfill requirements for additional DTR claims.

Section 806(2) time limit extension did not apply to claims.

No relevant adjustment to UK or foreign tax payable occurred that would trigger the extended time limit; taxpayers’ arguments were circular.

Section 806(2) time limit extension did not apply to non-EU dividends returned as taxable.

The adjustment to tax payable for EU dividends was not causally connected to claims for non-EU dividends which were always taxable.

EUFT cannot be generated by FNR credit, and section 806(2) does not extend the time limit for EUFT claims.

FNR credit does not represent foreign tax payable, and the credit is capped at the UK tax rate; FII SC 3 did not support Taxpayer's arguments.

In-time amendment after enquiry opening did not adjust tax payable, so section 806(2) not engaged.

Paragraph 31(4)(b) deems amendment to take effect as part of closure notice; income remained taxable throughout, and Taxpayer could have made in-time claim under section 806(1).

In-time claim for DTR was necessary to carry forward unused DTR credits.

Domestic legislation requires a claim for each accounting period; FII SC 3 did not address procedural requirements for carry-forward, and Class 8 established that lack of knowledge is no excuse.

Section 806(2) not engaged in Year 2 due to lack of adjustment to tax in Year 1 and no DTR to carry forward.

No change to Year 1 tax and no valid Year 1 claim means no DTR to carry forward; no causal link between Year 2 DTR and management expenses allocation.

FTT lacked jurisdiction to determine Issue 12 (management expenses and DTR under Schedule D Case I) in a closure notice application.

Issue should be determined at a full appeal if the claim is deemed valid; insufficient arguments to determine issue.

FTT lacked jurisdiction to direct how HMRC should close an enquiry.

No statutory basis for such direction; HMRC's compliance with FTT findings can only be tested via an appeal against the closure notice.

DTR credit is capped at the UK tax rate applied to the foreign dividend, less WHT.

Authorities consistently confirm that the FNR credit is capped at the UK tax rate.

Net dividend income, not gross income, should be brought into account when applying Section 811.

HMRC did not challenge the FTT's conclusion on net versus gross, and no error of law was demonstrated in how the FNR credit was calculated.

Appeals against alternative decisions can be allowed simultaneously if both succeed.

FTT correctly allowed all of Henderson's successful appeals despite some being alternative.

EUFT cannot be claimed for credit at the FNR in the current year; carry back, carry forward, or in-year relief against specific categories of income.

Sections 806D(4), (5) and 806E envisage carry back and forward, not in-year relief against other types of income.