The company, in administration, appealed against a refusal to allow its claims for input tax. The revenue said that the claims were in connection with claims involving fraudulent VAT claims under a missing trader arrangement. The claimant said that the Revenue had not established that the claimants own claims were fraudulent.
Held: The tribunal had failed properly to distinguish between the states of mind of people involved in a fraudulent arrangement where on the one hand they knew of the fraud, and on the other, someone whoch should have known but did not. Such transactions would involve people with several different degrees of knowledge. Sophisticated frauds did often not resolve by simple analysis. The distinction between dishonesty and negligence remained of fundamental importance, even where proof of either might suffice for the opposing party’s purpose. However there were no grounds shown here to allow the appeal.
Judges:
Briggs J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 18 (Ch), Times 02-Feb-2010, [2010] STI 232, [2010] STC 840
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Megtian Ltd v Revenue and Customs VDT 11-Dec-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
VAT
Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.392882