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.

Was Input Tax Correctly Disallowed On The Grounds That The Transactions Were Fraudulent And The Appellant New Or Should Have Known?

By Andrew Needham, February 2019

This was an appeal against three decisions by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) resulting in assessments, including penalties, of over £8.3 million.  
    
The decisions related to input tax claimed on the purchase of precious metal (platinum and palladium). HMRC’s primary case in relation to these decisions was that the transactions concerned were ‘connected with a fraudulent evasion of VAT’ and that the appellant, ‘knew or should have known that this was the case’. An additional, alternative, case advanced by HMRC at the hearing was that the appellant knew or should have known that the transactions were not consistent with a genuine commercial market and were therefore connected to fraud in general.  
 
Background 
 
The transactions with which this appeal is concerned relate to the purchase of precious metals by the

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 appellant entitled to use the standard method override to deduct input tax on overheads?
By Andrew Needham, May 2022
Was the taxpayer entitled to reclaim input tax on property costs relating to rent-free periods of did it not relate to an economic activity?
By Andrew Needham, July 2020
Was the appellant entitled to recover input tax on tax advice for its directors?
By Andrew Needham, January 2020
Is The ‘Builders Block’ Lawful And What Goods Are Normally Incorporated?
By Andrew Needham, June 2017
Was A Business Entitled To Recovery Input Tax On The Repair Of A Third Parties’ Motor Vehicle?
By Andrew Needham, June 2017