Officer’s Liability
Officer’s Liability
Sections 69D VATA states as follows:
69D Penalties under section 69C: officers' liability
Where—
a company is liable to a penalty under section 69C, and
the actions of the company which give rise to that liability were attributable to an officer of the company ("the officer"), the officer is liable to pay such portion of the penalty (which may be equal to or less than 100%) as HMRC may specify in a notice given to the officer (a "decision notice").
Before giving the officer a decision notice HMRC must—
inform the officer that they are considering doing so, and
afford the officer the opportunity to make representations about whether a decision notice should be given or the portion that should be specified.
A decision notice—
may not be given before the amount of the penalty due from the company has been assessed (but it may be given immediately after that has happened), and
may not be given more than two years after the denial decision relevant to that penalty was issued.
HMRC may not recover more than 100% of the penalty through issuing decision notices in relation to two or more persons.
A person is not liable to pay an amount by virtue of this section if the actions of the company concerned are attributable to the person by reference to conduct for which the person has been convicted of an offence. In this subsection "conduct" includes omissions.
In this section "company" means a body corporate or unincorporated association but does not include a partnership, a local authority or a local authority association.
In its application to a body corporate other than a limited liability partnership "officer" means—
a director (including a shadow director within the meaning of section 251 of the Companies Act 2006),
a manager, or
a secretary.
In its application to a limited liability partnership "officer" means a member.
In its application in any other case, "officer" means—
a director,
a manager,
a secretary, or
any other person managing or purporting to manage any of the company's affairs.
- 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)