Deos’ interactions with HMRC concerning VAT fraud
Deos’ interactions with HMRC concerning VAT fraud
On 21 April 2022, HMRC wrote to Deos stating that HMRC were concerned that Deos could be at risk of involvement in supply chains connected with fraud and that this could potentially lead to Deos being unable to recover input tax it incurred; a meeting was proposed, to discuss Deos’ business activities and VAT records, at which HMRC could explain “ways to spot missing trader fraud” to assist Deos “in avoiding becoming involved in supply chains that could be linked to MTIC fraud”.
On 25 May 2022 HMRC wrote to Deos informing it that they would be checking the company’s 04/22 VAT return; the letter said that HMRC’s checks looked at the risk to the UK of MTIC fraud and VAT supply chain fraud. A similar letter in respect of 05/22 was sent on 20 June 2022.
On 5 August 2022, HMRC sent Deos two ‘tax loss’ letters (i.e. letters stating that HMRC, following enquiries, now knew that certain transactions commenced with a ‘defaulting trader’) covering transactions with Thames in the 04/21, 06/21 and 08/21 VAT periods. Similar letters were sent on 30 November 2022 in respect of Estanza and the 04/22 and 05/22 VAT periods.
- 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)