This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more about cookies on this website and how to delete cookies, see our privacy notice.

Should the appellant have known that some of its transactions were connected with fraud and should it have been able to recover the input tax charged?

By Andrew Needham, June 2026

This was an appeal by the appellant against an assessment by HMRC for £274,198 for disallowed input tax on the grounds that the appellant knew or should have known that the transactions were connected to fraud. HMRC contended that under the principles set out in the case law, in particular, by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Axel Kittel v Belgium & Belgium v Recolta Recycling SPRL (C-439/04 and C-440/04) (Kittel), the appellant was not entitled to deduct the disputed tax for VAT purposes. 

The appellant worked in the construction sector and employed its own staff but also engaged temporary agency staff. In the case of a supplier, Simplify Limited, had not paid output tax due to HMRC, was assessed for underdeclared output tax, was placed into liquidation and the outstanding debts remained unpaid. HMRC considered this to be fraudulent evasion.

Subscribe to the McLaughlin’s Tax Case Library to get instant access
to the Tax Case Library.
14 day free trial , 90 day money back guarantee
Subscribe

Related or similar articles

Was the supply of fuel with plant hire a single composite supply or a multiple supply?
By Andrew Needham, January 2025
Was the input tax directly linked to a taxable or exempt supply?
By Andrew Needham, October 2023
Was the error ‘careless’ or ‘deliberate’?
By Andrew Needham, May 2023
Was input tax on building works recoverable by the appellant?
By Andrew Needham, July 2021
Did the appellant have a reasonable excuse for issuing a zero-rating certificate in error?
By Andrew Needham, April 2021