Currently, for the purpose of clear understandidng it is proposed to look through Marks & Spencer judgement basing on the on the following main aspects:
I. The procedural background of the case : jurisdictions involved and procedure II. The facts. III. The arguments of the parties IV. The court’s decision V. Comment on the case
Marks and Spencer v Halsey case is an international case about tax base harmonization. However, M&S might be called a “pro-European” policy case, because it implies an over-arching vision of a unified Europe. A unified Europe implies political, economic, and cultural integration, as well as cooperation among member states. What are the implications of such a vision for member states? Is integration contributing something positive or negative to member states and to the larger world? Will integrative efforts paradoxically provoke rigidity as individual states seek to preserve their national ideals? Can national identity incorporate change? All of these questions are relevant today, making M&S so much more than a typical technical tax case.
I. At present we deal with case that was brought before the The Grand Chamber under the provisions, in main proceedings, of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (‘the ICTA’) and following interpretation of the Article 43 EC, in conjunction with Article 48 EC.
II. The Marks and Spencer v Halsey case has arisen from M&S seeking to surrender losses of its German, French and Belgian subsidiaries against the profits of their UK mother-company for years in the mid-90s. M&S are unable to do this under UK statute but are claiming under Article 43 (Freedom of Establishment) and Article 56 (Freedom of Capital) that the rules that prevent them doing so are discrimination under the EU Treaty, as it favours the establishment of business and capital in the UK rather than