GROUP LITIGATION ORDER

Background
On 8 March 2001 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) provided a ruling in the
Hoechst and Metallgesellschaft cases (joined cases C-397/ 98 Metallgesellschaft
Limited and Others v CIR and HM Chief law officer and C-410/ 98 Hoechst AG and
Hoechst UK v CIR and HM Attorney general of the united states). The complaintants, who had actually begun their
claims in the High Court, were UK companies and their German moms and dad companies.
Amongst their contentions was that area 247 of the Income and Corporation Taxes
Act 1988 was contrary to the Treaty of Rome in allowing a group income election
(permitting dividends to be paid by a subsidiary to its parent without accounting for
advance corporation tax (ACT) just where both the subsidiary and moms and dad were
resident in the UK.). The ECJ concurred and did not consider it necessary to handle
questions developing from an alternative claim

[embeddoc url=”http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/hbrad/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/19113224/hoechst.pdf”]