VALUE ADDED TAX – MTIC – HMRC’s refusal to repay VAT on supplies connected with fraudulent VAT evasion – connection conceded by the appellant – only issues were whether the appellant knew or should have known of the connection – Axel Kittel v Belgian State and Mobilx v Commissioners for HMRC considered – held the appellant did not actually know of the connection, but it should have known of it because the only reasonable explanation for the circumstances in which the supplies took place was that the supplies were connected with fraudulent VAT evasion – appeal dismissed
Citations:
[2012] UKFTT 470 (TC)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Axel Kittel v Belgian State; Belgian State v Recolta Recycling SPRL ECJ 6-Jul-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Deduction of input tax – ‘Carousel’ fraud – Contract of sale incurably void under domestic law.
The right of a taxpayer to deduct Input Tax may be refused if: ‘it is ascertained, . .
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 October 2022; Ref: scu.466032
