TC09659 - [2025] UKFTT 01211 (TC)

Fecha: 18-Sep-2025

The Appellants’ case

The Appellants’ case

135.

In summary Miss Sheldon put the case for the Appellants as follows:

(1)

there was no evidence that SKM in fact knew that its transactions with BTL were connected to fraud and HMRC had not discharged the burden of proof in showing that SKM should have known that its transactions with BTL were connected to fraud and therefore the appeal against the Input Tax Denials should be allowed;

(2)

if the Tribunal found for HMRC in relation to the Input Tax Denials, although the Company Penalty is parasitic on the Input Tax Denials, the Penalty ought to be mitigated to nil in particular on the grounds SF and KG had acted in good faith;

(3)

if the Tribunal found against the Appellants on these two issues, the condition that the actions of SKM which gave rise to the liability were attributable to SF is not met (inter alia because the actions of SKM were attributable to KG).

136.

These summaries do not set out the cases advanced for the Appellants or HMRC with the eloquence and detail used by Miss Brown or Miss Sheldon respectively. However, the summaries do set out the essence of their cases. We carefully considered all the points which were argued orally and in writing, and, while we may not have set out all the arguments advanced, that does not mean that they were not carefully considered and of much assistance in reaching our conclusions.