Deos and its business
Deos and its business
Deos was incorporated, and registered for VAT, in 2017. At times relevant to these appeals, Mr Smith was group managing director, and Michelle Stoneman, Mr Smith’s partner (in the personal sense), was the sole company director; the business reality was that Deos was run by Mr Smith and Ms Stoneman.
Deos’ core business, which dated back to the late 1970s when it was started by Mr Smith’s parents, was selling and leasing office equipment, such as photocopiers, furniture, printers and office supplies. At relevant times, it had a staff of about 17 people. It operated from a medium sized unit on a small industrial estate: an office block with an adjacent warehouse facility containing office equipment and stock – photocopiers, furniture etc.
Deos’ turnover and profit, per its accounts, in the four years ending 31 March 2022, were as follows:
2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
Turnover | £4.1 million | £7.3 million | £7.7 million | £46.2 million |
Profit | £2 million | £4 million | £3 million | £2.1 million |
It will be noted that turnover spiked in the year ended 31 March 2022 (which was the year in which Deos started trading, wholesale, in small electronic goods – as to which, more below), though its profits did not.
- 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
![TC09617 - [2025] UKFTT 01018 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)