Heading

Case Number: TC09659
Taylor House, London
Appeal references: TC/2023/01059
TC 2023/07727
TC2023/01057
TC2023/08092
VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax deductibility – MTIC - right to deduct restricted under principles in Kittel – whether transactions connected with fraudulent VAT evasion – whether actual or ‘blind-eye’ knowledge of the transactions being connected with fraud – whether constructive knowledge in the alternative – appeal allowed
Judgment date: 10 October 2025
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAVID HARKNESS
MEMBER DR PHEBE MANN
Between
(1) SK METALS LIMITED
(2) SPENCER FELDMAN
Appellants
and
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents
Representation:
For the Appellant: Rebecca Sheldon, of Counsel, instructed directly
For the Respondents: Charlotte Brown, of Counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs
We want to thank both counsel for the manner in which they presented their respective cases, which was helpful to the Tribunal.
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
![TC09659 - [2025] UKFTT 01211 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)