VALUE ADDED TAX – purchases of televisions – transactions connected to fraudulent loss of tax – whether taxable person should have known that its transactions were connected to fraud – whether HMRC required to prove that only reasonable explanation for the transactions is that they were connected to fraud and that there are no other reasonable explanations for transactions than fraud – Axel Kittel v Belgian State and Mobilx v HMRC considered – appeal dismissed
Citations:
[2017] UKUT 191 (TCC)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Davis and Dann Ltd and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA 15-Mar-2016
The Revenue appealed from rejection of its refusal to refund input tax in the basis that the company though itself innocent of VAT fraud should have understood that the transaction was part of a MTIC fraud. The court was now asked whether the Upper . .
Cited – Mobilx Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs; Blue Sphere Global Ltd v Same and similar CA 12-May-2010
Each company sought repayment of input VAT. HMRC refused, saying that the transactions were the end-product of a fraud on it, and that even if the taxpayer did not know that a fraud was involved, it should have been aware that one was and acted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
VAT
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584679
