• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Q&A: Supreme Court finds for Danish tax authority

The Supreme Court has unanimously found in favour of the Danish tax authority (SKAT) in Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP and others [2023] UKSC 40. The court held that SKAT’s claims against various parties involved in the ‘cum-ex’ scandal were not inadmissible as a result of the revenue rule – essentially this is not an attempt to enforce Danish tax laws in the English courts. This means that the claims can proceed to a full trial (scheduled to start in April 2024).

What are the facts of this case?

The background to this case is the vast ‘cum-ex’ scandal which has hit many European jurisdictions, including Denmark. Broadly, this was a tax arbitrage scheme targeting legislative provisions which permitted non-resident shareholders to reclaim income tax withheld on dividend payments. In essence, cum-ex involved reclaiming withholding tax multiple times as the same shares were transferred rapidly between a group of investors with (cum) and without (ex) the right to dividends around the time of dividend payment dates. The claim in question is brought by SKAT in the English courts against a large number of defendants (currently 89). SKAT argues that (very broadly) the defendants fraudulently induced it to pay out refunds of Danish withholding tax (relating to dividend payments made by Danish companies) to recipients who were not entitled to them, in an aggregate amount of almost £1.5bn. A key point made by SKAT is that the refund applicants owned no shares in any Danish companies, received no dividends and suffered no Danish withholding tax. The defendants had argued that SKAT’s claims are inadmissible under the long-standing and widely-recognised ‘revenue rule’. This states ‘the English courts have no jurisdiction to entertain an action … for the enforcement, either directly or indirectly, of a penal, revenue or other public law of a foreign state’. In other words, the English courts will not (as a matter of common law) enforce or collect foreign taxes. This can effectively be overridden where there is an agreement made by treaty or convention (such as a double tax treaty (DTT) or the OECD Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters), but that was not relevant in this case. SKAT’s claims have given rise to a very large and complex piece of litigation. The arguments on the revenue rule were heard as a preliminary issue, with the main trial to follow. The High Court originally found in favour of the defendants and dismissed the claim on the basis that the revenue rule did apply. This was overturned by the Court of Appeal (CA) and then appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

The Supreme Court agreed with SKAT’s arguments (and the CA) that the revenue rule did not apply to this case. The reasoning was that the claims are not claims for the direct or indirect enforcement of foreign tax laws. Rather they are essentially claims by a victim of an alleged fraud for repayment of sums which were taken from it. While the Danish tax system provided the context for the alleged fraud, the refund applicants were never Danish taxpayers – at no point were they under any liability to pay Danish tax. SKAT’s claim also did not rely on any Danish legislation giving rise to an obligation to repay the funds; rather it was put on the basis of common law causes of action in English law. This was, therefore, in line with the rationale of the revenue rule, in the sense that it does not involve any attempt to assert the sovereign authority of the state imposing the taxes (ie Denmark) within the territory of another. The claims are also consistent with the principle that the revenue rule does not prevent the English courts from recognising foreign tax laws (as opposed to enforcing them), provided that this does not otherwise conflict with public policy. The Supreme Court also rejected a secondary argument that the claims were inadmissible by virtue of the ‘sovereign authority rule’ – ie that an action for the enforcement, directly or indirectly, of a public law of a foreign state is inadmissible. It held that SKAT’s claims do not involve an act of a sovereign character; rather they are claims that would equally be open to any private citizen who alleges they have been defrauded in a similar way. The fact that SKAT had used ‘sovereign powers’ (ie mutual assistance agreements) to obtain information from other states regarding the claims was ‘at most, of merely peripheral significance’.

What are the practical implications of this case?

The impact of this decision is very significant. Most immediately, it means that SKAT’s claims can proceed to a full trial (scheduled to begin in April 2024 and last for many months). More generally, the Supreme Court has re-asserted that the revenue rule remains applicable. There are still clear and cogent reasons for its existence, even in the current era of increased international co-operation and mutual assistance in relation to tax collection and information exchange. It should always therefore be considered when there is any potential assessment and collection of tax in a cross-border context. However, the rule does have its limitations and its scope and application to a particular case needs to be carefully

considered in line with its purpose and rationale. For example, the fact that a foreign state’s tax system provides the context and background for a claim does not, of itself, mean that it will be inadmissible. Rather, it is necessary to consider closely the substance of the claim and whether it is an attempt directly or indirectly to enforce foreign tax laws. Finally, while this case arises out of particularly remarkable facts, other jurisdictions are affected by the ‘cum-ex’ scandal and

there is currently a more general crackdown on international tax evasion and non-compliance. It will be interesting to see if other tax authorities are encouraged by this decision and explore similar avenues to recover sums they consider are owed to them, whether in relation to the ‘cum-ex’ scandal or other issues.


This Q&A article was originally published by Taxation on 23 November 2023.

Our thinking

  • Women in Leadership: Planning for the future

    Sarah Wigington

    Events

  • In-House Insights: Legal operations at work - how to do more with less

    Megan Paul

    Events

  • It’s not just a High Court decision, it’s a successful M&S High Court Decision

    Sophie Willis

    Quick Reads

  • The Financial Times quotes Sophie Dworetzsky on potential drawbacks of changing or scrapping UK non-dom rules

    Sophie Dworetzsky

    In the Press

  • Take-aways for UK firms from ESMA’s consultation on reverse solicitation

    Cheryl Tham

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys Paris significantly strengthens litigation practice with notable team hire led by Frédéric Dereux

    Frédéric Dereux

    News

  • Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill: Where are we now?

    Laura Bushaway

    Insights

  • City AM quotes Dominic Lawrance on the potential scrapping of non-dom rules in the Spring Budget

    Dominic Lawrance

    In the Press

  • The Grocer quotes Kelvin Tanner on the impact of upcoming visa changes on the hospitality industry

    Kelvin Tanner

    In the Press

  • The Daily Telegraph quotes Nick Hurley on the legalities of asking for childcare employment in lieu of rent

    Nick Hurley

    In the Press

  • FCA Authorisation: Do I need to be FCA-regulated?

    Richard Ellis

    Insights

  • Post-sale planning: The Maximisation and Protection of Private Wealth following a Business Sale or Exit Event

    Tabitha Collett

    Insights

  • City AM quotes William Garner on FCA plans to 'name and shame' firms under investigation

    William Garner

    In the Press

  • Supreme Court confirms injunctions can be granted against newcomers

    Harriet Durn

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys ‘Client Conversations’ welcomes one of the best strikers of all time and greatest players in Premier League history, Alan Shearer CBE

    Simon Ridpath

    News

  • Edward Robinson and Charlie Searle write for FT Adviser on key considerations when an individual inherits company shares

    Edward Robinson

    In the Press

  • Hugh Gunson and Karin Mouhon write for Tax Journal on a recent Upper Tribunal decision - HMRC v The Taxpayer

    Hugh Gunson

    In the Press

  • Pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the workplace

    Michael Powner

    Insights

  • Thomas Snider and Dalal Alhouti write for New Law Journal on international arbitration trends

    Thomas R. Snider

    In the Press

  • Dawn raids... a new dawn?

    Rhys Novak

    Quick Reads

  • Client Conversations Podcast: Alan Shearer CBE

    Simon Ridpath

    Podcasts

  • Sifted quotes Victoria Younghusband on a boardroom disagreement involving Klarna and Sequoia Capital

    Victoria Younghusband

    In the Press

  • The ongoing fight against fakes

    Charlotte Duly

    Quick Reads

  • Abu Dhabi’s New Arbitral Centre Unveils its Rules

    Dalal Alhouti

    Quick Reads

  • Planning essentials case update: when can an enforcement notice against an unlawful use also require the removal of related structures?

    Sadie Pitman

    Quick Reads

  • Dubai Court of Cassation Extends Arbitration Agreement Across Subsequent Contracts

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • Good news for users of the Madrid System

    Charlotte Duly

    Quick Reads

  • Michael Gove's announcement on transitional period for two staircase requirement for new residential buildings

    Melanie Hardingham

    Quick Reads

  • Nigeria's challenge to US$11 billion award succeeds in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales

    John Olatunji

    Quick Reads

  • Navratri at Charles Russell Speechlys

    Arjun Thakrar

    Quick Reads

  • An important reminder for employers on World Menopause Day

    Isobel Goodman

    Quick Reads

  • UAE Polishes Federal Arbitration Law

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • A Labour government: what might be in store for personal taxation?

    Sarah Wray

    Quick Reads

  • What next for HS2?

    Richard Flenley

    Quick Reads

  • Mediation as a pillar of dispute resolution: it’s happening, embrace it

    Jamie Cartwright

    Quick Reads

  • A warning to all businesses: significant fine underscores the importance of maintaining workplace Health & Safety

    Rory Partridge

    Quick Reads

  • Office to Lab Conversions: A new lease of life (sciences) for some of London’s offices?

    Quick Reads

  • The Family Fund: Bank of Mum & Dad 2.0

    Vanessa Duff

    Quick Reads

  • The perpetual struggle between the environment, heritage and development: the M&S decision vs 55 Bishopsgate

    Sophie Willis

    Quick Reads

  • Treasury Committee endorses mandatory venture capital diversity policies from 2025

    Lia Renna

    Quick Reads

Back to top