TC09659 - [2025] UKFTT 01211 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

TC09659 - [2025] UKFTT 01211 (TC)

Fecha: 18-Sep-2025

summary

summary

2.

The Appellants, SK Metals Limited (“SKM”) and Mr Spencer Feldman (“SF”) appeal against the following decisions by the Respondents (“HMRC”):

(1)

TC/2023/01059: HMRC’s decision dated 31 October 2022 to deny input tax of £618,428, later varied by decision on 17 February 2023 to £606,097, for transactions relating to purchases of scrap metal from B Trade Limited (“BTL”) in VAT Accounting Periods 02/21 to 08/21(the “First Input Tax Denial”);

(2)

TC/2023/10175: HMRC’s decision dated 20 March 2023 to issue a section 69C Value Added Tax Act 1994 (“VATA”) penalty (the “Penalty”) against SKM in the sum of £184,999;

(3)

TC/2023/07727: HMRC’s decision dated 10 March 2023 to deny input tax of £8091 for further transactions relating to the purchase of scrap metal from BTL in VAT accounting periods 02/21 and 05/21 (the “Second Input Tax Denial” and, together with the First Input Tax Denial, the “Input Tax Denials”); and

(4)

TC/2023/08092: HMRC’s decision dated 26 April 2022 to make SF personally liable for the entire Penalty issued pursuant to s69D VATA (the “PLN”).

3.

The central questions before us were:

(1)

whether HMRC had properly denied SKM’s right to deduct input tax by way of the Input Tax Denials on the basis that SKM knew, or ought to have known, its transactions with BTL were connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT (on the basis of the line of case law referred to below as “Kittel”);

(2)

whether the Penalty was properly charged on the basis that SKM knew or ought to have known that its transactions with BTL were connected with VAT; and

(3)

whether the PLN was properly charged on the basis that SKM is liable to the Penalty and the actions of SKM giving rise to the Penalty were attributable to SF.

4.

We found that SKM neither knew, nor ought to have known, that its transactions with BTL were connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT and therefore the Input Tax Denials should not have been made. It followed that the Penalty should not have been charged and that there was no PLN to which SF was liable.

5.

Accordingly, we allowed Appellants’ appeal.