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

Fecha: 02-Oct-2025

F.1.9 Conclusion on Alleged Misrepresentations

F.1.9 Conclusion on Alleged Misrepresentations

521.

The result, and my decision, is that of the various representations alleged by SKAT and pursued by it in closing argument, considering in the first instance only whether they were made at all in the objective sense that SKAT accepted was a threshold requirement for all of its claims:

(i)

the tax representation was not made by the tax reclaim documents themselves, that is to say (so far as material) the Form and the CAN submitted with it;

(ii)

the tax representation may have been made, however, where the Tax Agent was Goal, Syntax or Koi, because of what those Tax Agents said in their cover letters about the tax reclaims they submitted;

(iii)

none of the other representations was made.

522.

SKAT’s claims concerning tax refund claims submitted by Acupay therefore fail in limine. There were 1,232 such claims (out of the 4,170 with which I am dealing), seeking payment in aggregate of DKK3,543,799,028.53, which was paid by SKAT.

523.

SKAT’s claims concerning the other 2,938 tax refund claims, on which it paid in aggregate DKK8,547,045,919.80, also fail in limine to the extent they were founded on alleged representations other than the tax representation. If the tax representation was made in those claims, because of the Tax Agents’ cover letters, it was always a misrepresentation. The dividend compensation payment that had been credited to the Tax Agent’s named client, and which therefore was the subject of the CAN submitted to SKAT, was not a payment from which tax had been withheld by the Danish company in question in the sense conveyed by the representation.