CL-2018-000297, CL-2018-000404, CL-2018-000590, - [2025] EWHC 2364 (Comm)

Again, as with the tax ownership representation, it does not follow, as SKAT submitted, from the fact that a CAN was being provided to support a tax refund claim that Mr Shah, or anyone else, must have understood or intended that a CAN would be read by SKAT as making any such statements. I do not accept that Mr Shah had any such understanding or intention. The fact, somewhat laboured by SKAT in its closing argument, that ultimately what might constitute a ‘dividend’ for the purposes of entitlement to a Danish dividend tax refund payment must surely be a matter of Danish tax law, and rather incoherent though some of Mr Shah’s evidence about that was, does not mean that statements made to SKAT must or should be taken to be stating things “as a matter of Danish tax law”.