HM Revenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd

[2009] EWCA Civ 1165

Case details

Case citations
[2009] EWCA Civ 1165 · [2010] STC 8 · [2010] STC 80
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment date
10 November 2009
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Tax Corporation tax Statutory interpretation
Keywords
loan relationships fixed price repos net-paying repos deemed manufactured interest accruals basis fair representation corporation tax statutory fictions non-trading deficit
Outcome
appeal allowed by majority (moses lj and rix lj; rimer lj dissenting)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Under section 84(1) of the Finance Act 1996, the court must identify sums using an authorised accounting method and then determine whether, taken together, they fairly represent all interest under the company’s loan relationships. The second criterion includes interest created by statutory fictions. In a net-paying repo, where deemed manufactured interest is representative of coupons received by the interim holder, fair representation required the coupon credit to equal the deemed debit. The credit was therefore £28.8 million, not merely the £2.9 million accruing during the holding period. The court must apply the legislation as enacted. It cannot introduce a general fairness adjustment or rewrite detailed tax provisions merely to secure the economic result shown in the accounts.

Factual background

DCC entered into five net-paying fixed-price repo transactions involving gilts. Although the transactions produced an accounting profit of £1.8 million, DCC claimed a substantial non-trading deficit for corporation tax purposes. The Special Commissioner dismissed DCC’s appeal and treated £1.8 million as the relevant net credit ([2007] STC (SCD) 592). Norris J allowed DCC’s appeal, holding that the statutory scheme produced a deficit of £24.1 million ([2008] EWHC 2429 (Ch); [2009] STC 77).

HMRC appealed. The central issue was whether section 84(1) required the coupon receipts to be credited at the accrued amount of £2.9 million or at £28.8 million, the amount of the deemed manufactured interest debit.

Held

  1. Disposition. By a majority, Moses LJ and Rix LJ allowed HMRC’s appeal and substituted an order dismissing DCC’s appeal against the amendment of its return. Rimer LJ dissented.
  2. Section 84(1) exercise. The section requires two related but distinct inquiries. First, the relevant sums must be identified in accordance with an authorised accounting method, here an accruals basis. Secondly, the sums, when taken together, must fairly represent all interest under the company’s loan relationships. The second inquiry is not merely an accounting exercise and is ultimately a matter for the court.
  3. Application to the repos. The coupon credit calculated on an accruals basis was £2.9 million. The combined effect of section 737A of the ICTA 1988, Schedule 23A and section 97 of the Finance Act 1996 was to deem DCC to have made manufactured-interest payments of £28.8 million. Those payments were representative of, and equal to, the coupons payable by the Government.
  4. Fair representation. Moses LJ held that crediting only £2.9 million would deprive the deemed interest expense of its statutory function. The statutory fiction was designed to represent and cancel the interest credited in respect of the gilts. The fair-representation requirement therefore required a credit of £28.8 million. Rix LJ reached the same result, emphasising that the statutory provisions sought to reproduce the substance of the repo as a secured loan.
  5. Statutory construction. The court rejected any general assumption that the provisions must produce the commercial profit shown in DCC’s accounts. The apparent mismatch resulted from legislation enacted through successive amendments. The court could not cure it by adding words, invoking fairness, or applying an asserted absurdity canon. The reasoning in HMRC v D’Arcy and R & C Comrs v Bank of Ireland supported that approach.
  6. Dissent. Rimer LJ considered that section 84(1) could not permit the authorised-accounting-method requirement to be displaced by a different method producing a £28.8 million credit. He would have dismissed the appeal.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The majority allowed HMRC’s appeal and substituted an order dismissing DCC’s appeal against the Revenue’s amendment of its return.
  2. High Court (Chancery Division). Norris J allowed DCC’s appeal and computed a non-trading deficit of £24.1 million ([2008] EWHC 2429 (Ch)).
  3. Special Commissioner. The Special Commissioner dismissed DCC’s appeal and concluded that £1.8 million was the net credit to be brought into account ([2007] STC (SCD) 592).

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Outcome:
appeal allowed by majority (moses lj and rix lj; rimer lj dissenting)

Appeal to higher court

Appealed to
Outcome of appeal
appeal dismissed unanimously

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.