1. CASE C-446/03 Marks & Spencer plc
Chang Liu
Kan-Ning Chen

2. Agenda Facts of CASE C-446/03 Argumentations of the UK Government
Decisions of European Court of Justice
Opportunities and Risks for Taxpayers

3. Facts of Case C-446/03
Marks & Spencer is a company incorporated and registered in the United Kingdom. It is the parent company of a number of subsidiaries established in the United Kingdom and other States.
In March 2001, Marks & Spencer ceased its trading in Continental Europe due to operating losses in its subsidiaries.
In the United Kingdom, Marks & Spencer claimed group tax relief. The claims for relief were rejected on the ground that group relief could only be granted for losses recorded in the United Kingdom.
Following the refusal of its claim, Marks & Spencer brought legal proceedings in the EU High Court, which asked the Court of Justice whether the United Kingdom provisions were compatible with the provisions of the EC（European Community）Treaty of freedom of establishment.

4. Argumentations of the UK Government
The profits and losses must be treated symmetrically in the same tax system in order to avoid group tax relief being taken into account twice.
Similarly, to give companies the option to have their losses taken into account in the Member State in which they are established or in another Member State would significantly jeopardise a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States.
The possibility of transferring the losses incurred by a non-resident company to a resident company entails the risk that within a group of companies losses will be transferred to companies established in the Member States which apply the highest rates of taxation and in which the tax value of the losses is therefore the highest

5. Decisions of European Court of Justice
As Community law now stands, Articles 43 EC and 48 EC do not preclude provisions of a Member State which generally prevent a resident parent company from deducting from its taxable profits losses incurred in another Member State by a subsidiary established in that Member State although they allow it to deduct losses incurred by a resident subsidiary.

6. Decisions of European Court of Justice
Contrary to Articles 43 EC and 48 EC to prevent the resident parent company from doing so where the non-resident subsidiary has exhausted the possibilities available in its State of residence of having the losses taken into account for the accounting period concerned by the claim for relief and also for previous accounting periods and where there are no possibilities for those losses to be taken into account in its State of residence for future periods either by the subsidiary itself or by a third party, in particular where the subsidiary has been sold to that third party.

7. Opportunities and Risks for Taxpayers
Companies within the EU may transfer their losses from low tax rate countries such as Cyprus(12.5%) and Bulgaria(10%) to high tax rate countries such as Italy(31.4%) and France(33.3%) to attain more group tax relief. Similarly, companies may transfer their profits from high tax rate countries to low tax rate countries to decrease tax payments.
For parent companies which are trying to claim group tax relief with some losses incurred in their subsidiaries in other EU member countries, the parent companies need to justify the legality of their claims and ensure that the claims are consistent with the tax laws in their resident countries.

8. Thank you!