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 there sufficient evidence that he knew or should have known that there was fraud in his supply chain?

By Andrew Needham, August 2024

Summary 

This was an appeal against the issue of a personal liability notice (PLN) in 2017 against the sole director of a company that was likely to become insolvent and that the appellant, as its sole director, was responsible for the inaccuracies in the company's VAT returns that had been identified by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). HMRC issued the PLN against Mr Powar, making him personally liable to pay the penalty of £74,823.63. 

Background 

The appellant’s company was an alcohol wholesaler. Although a trader is entitled as of right to claim a deduction of input tax, there is an exception to this principle where a trader knew or should have known that, by its purchase, it was taking part in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT. This is because, in such a situation, the trader is an ‘accomplice’ and aids the perpetrators of the fraud (see Axel Kittel v

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 there a single supply of fitted carpets or two separate supplies of carpets and fitting?
By Andrew Needham, September 2025
Were the supplies of education supplied by the three higher educational bodies exempt from VAT?
By Andrew Needham, June 2025
Was the supply of services to an overseas entity?
By Andrew Needham, July 2023
Was the supply of car parking facilities by an NHS Trust a taxable supply?
By Andrew Needham, December 2022
Was the appellant entitled to claim input tax on the basis that it intended to make taxable supplies?
By Andrew Needham, December 2022