![TC09659 - [2025] UKFTT 01211 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
Case law Authorities
Case law Authorities
As with the applicable legislation, there was little or no difference between the parties as to the applicable case law. The following paragraphs summarise the case law put to us by the parties. Other case law was referred to and taken into account by us, but given the law was agreed we have only set out the key authorities relevant to our decision.
- Heading
- Introduction
- summary
- Issues for determination
- Evidence and submissions
- Officer Borland
- Officer Pathak
- Mr Feldman
- Mr Granger
- Adverse inferences - Mr Perdicou
- Findings of fact
- Background – SK
- Background KG
- Background SKM
- Background SKM – Knowledge of MTIC
- SKM’s Business – control
- SKM’s business
- BTL’s business and its dealings with SKM
- Commencement of trading with SKM
- Invoices
- HMRC’s First Investigation of SKM
- SKM’s approach to Due Diligence
- HMRC’s investigation of BTL
- HMRC’s Second Investigation of SKM
- EU background
- Right to credit for input tax
- Liability to a penalty
- Officer’s Liability
- Mitigation
- Case law Authorities
- Denial of credit for input tax - Kittel
- Mobilx
- Limits of the relevance of due diligence
- Reasonable explanations for circumstances of a transaction
- the parties cases
- The Appellants’ case
- consideration of the issues
- Knowledge of the existence and prevalence of fraud in SKM’s trading sector
- Significant trade with a fraudulent defaulter
- No evidence of commercial negotiations
- Lack of contractual documentation
- Issues with invoices
- Lack of commerciality in the way the transactions were structured
- Insufficient due diligence
- Viability of the goods as described by your supplier. For example
- Examples of specific checks carried out by existing businesses
- Looking at the overall picture
- Conclusions