TC09666 - [2025] UKFTT 01253 (TC)

Fecha: 09-Sep-2025

Alternative evidence for the Colridge Invoice

Alternative evidence for the Colridge Invoice

69.

We must therefore consider whether HMRC unreasonably declined to exercise its discretion in Regulation 29(2), noting the burden of proof as set out above.

70.

Ms Brickell objected to the Colridge Invoice for several reasons. In addition to the general concerns summarised above as to the BHNV Invoice, Ms Brickell had specific concerns in respect of the Colridge Invoice, including:

(1)

There was no tangible evidence of services provided by Colridge to the Appellant,

(2)

The invoice was not paid for by the Appellant.

(3)

There was significant confusion in the information received from the Appellant’s agent because it was unclear who his ‘client’ was and at what time.

(4)

As with the BHNV Invoice, prior to the Appellant’s incorporation any services provided by Colridge could only have been provided to Mr and Mrs Dreyfuss as individuals or as directors of Eurocent Group Ltd.

71.

Mr Levine repeated some of the same points he had raised in connection with the BHNV Invoice, including that it was not unusual for a group company to have group banking role but did not have much to add.

72.

We find that HMRC was not unreasonable in declining to exercise its discretion under Regulation 29(2) in respect of the Colridge Invoice. As with the BHNV Invoice the Appellant has provided some answers but we cannot say that the Appellant has shown on the balance of probabilities that no body of Commissioners could reasonably have come to the conclusion that it did.