summary
summary
The Appellants, SK Metals Limited (“SKM”) and Mr Spencer Feldman (“SF”) appeal against the following decisions by the Respondents (“HMRC”):
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”);
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;
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
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”).
The central questions before us were:
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”);
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
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.
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.
Accordingly, we allowed Appellants’ appeal.
- 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)