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 the error ‘careless’ or ‘deliberate’?

By Andrew Needham, May 2023

This was an appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The appellant sold used commercial vehicles to customers registered for VAT in Eire during VAT periods 08/12 to 10/15 and zero-rated their sales. HMRC was not satisfied that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence that goods supplied to its customers in Eire had been removed from the UK, and therefore there was no right to zero-rate those supplies; HMRC, HMRC also assessed for penalty purposes as a for deliberate inaccuracy. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found for HMRC. This appeal was only on the grounds that the penalty should not have been for deliberate conduct. 

The appellant submitted that a deliberate inaccuracy required a finding that the taxpayer knew that a document contained an error and provided it to HMRC with the intention that HMRC should rely on the documents as accurate.  

In short, the FTT made two findings: first, that "CPR cannot have reasonably concluded that they

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 treatment for female baldness a zero-rated supply of medical services for the treatment of a disability?
By Andrew Needham, March 2026
Was there a reasonable excuse for the submission of two late VAT returns and payments?
By Andrew Needham, May 2025
Was grant-funded income for the provision of education a supply of services for consideration?
By Andrew Needham, March 2025
Was there sufficient evidence for HMRC to accept input tax deduction and zero-rating of exports?
By Andrew Needham, August 2021
Was the provision of education and/or vocational training by the appellant provided free of charge to students and funded by grants from two government funding agencies is a “supply of services for consideration”?
By Andrew Needham, February 2021