Juristeca
Juristeca País
    TC09617 - [2025] UKFTT 01018 (TC)
    First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

    TC09617 - [2025] UKFTT 01018 (TC)

    Fecha: 13-Jun-2025

    Error al cargar el documento

    Vista, DOCUMENTO COMPLETO
    • Heading
    • These were appeals against HMRC’s
    • The issues for the Tribunal
    • Evidence
    • FINDINGS OF FACT
    • The supply chain in relation to the purchases
    • Deos and its business
    • Spring 2021: Deos starts buying and selling, wholesale, electronic consumer goods like Apple AirPods
    • August 2021: Deos starts buying from Estanza
    • Deos’ pattern of trading with Estanza
    • Examples showing commercial risks taken by Deos in its trading pattern with Estanza
    • The break in Deos’ trading with Estanza in December 2021-February 2022
    • Things said about VAT fraud in Mr Smith’s WhatsApp messaging with his contact at RCS Holland BV
    • Deos and RC
    • Deos’ interactions with HMRC concerning VAT fraud
    • Estanza’s VAT deregistration and reregistration
    • SUMMARY OF RELEVANT LAW
    • Mobilx
    • Other authorities on Kittel principles
    • HMRC’s pleadings
    • THE PARTIES’ CASES
    • Deos’ general awareness of MTIC fraud
    • The suspiciousness of the market in which Deos was dealing
    • Inadequacy of Deos’ due diligence and of its “break” in trading with Estanza in December 2021-February 2022
    • The unlikelihood of coincidence that so many of Deos’ transactions should have traced to fraudulent tax losses
    • Other points
    • HMRC’s concluding submissions
    • Deos’ case on its state of knowledge
    • Deos’ procedural arguments (and HMRC’s response)
    • were not mentioned in HMRC’s statement of case, and so should not be considered by the Tribunal, in keeping with the principle in E Buyer of HMRC having to give properly informative particulars of the
    • DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
    • Stage 1: persuasive direct evidence of knowledge on the part of Mr Smith?
    • Stage 2: were the circumstances of the purchases sufficiently suspicious so as to draw an inference of knowledge (of connection with VAT fraud) on the part of Mr Smith/Deos?
    • Stage 3: were the circumstances of the purchases sufficiently suspicious that a reasonable businessperson would have known that they were connected with fraudulent VAT evasion; put differently, was th
    • Conclusions

    Síguenos en

    Políticas de eliminación | Políticas de privacidad

    © 2026 Juristeca