UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/00099 - [2025] UKUT 00013 (TCC)

Officer Mills’ decision to assess was upheld by statutory review dated 7 June 2019 ([14]); the statutory review letter included the following passages:

“Introduction

I refer to your representative’s, Aspire Partnership, letter of 04 March 2019, which requested a statutory review be carried out in relation to HMRC officer Mills’ decision that the input tax recovered by the company should be repaid to HMRC as the company does not hold sufficient evidence to support the recovery of the input tax claimed.

…

Matters under dispute

A decision has been issued that determines the input tax claimed by the company cannot be recovered as sufficient evidence has not been presented to demonstrate an entitlement to recover input tax. Also there has not been evidence of payment provided to show that any input tax incurred has been paid by the company.

Your representatives have stated that sufficient alternative evidence has been presented to allow recovery of the input tax. Your representatives have also stated that evidence of payment by the company for supplies received has been provided.

…

The facts

…

The records provided showed bulk payment details for the account “Verity” which you advised Officer Mills is a variety of labour providers and your representatives have stated is used for administrative purposes. Officer Mills has advised that the actual invoices that make up the “Verity” payments have not been provided meaning that the input tax relating to these supplies cannot be verified.

…

No further information or detail regarding the input tax claimed has been presented since the request for the review was received.

What I have considered in my review

…

Your representatives consider that there has been sufficient evidence presented in the form of alternative evidence for the input tax claimed to be allowed and that the assessments raised should be withdrawn.

…

Input tax

…

Regulation 29(2) allows for a claim to be made for input tax despite not having an invoice if other evidence, as allowed by the Commissioners, is held to show VAT was charged.

It is considered that the company does not hold a VAT invoice that is required to be provided as per Regulation 13 and that the information provided to date does not amount to sufficient alternative evidence to support any claim for VAT to be recovered as input tax of the company.

…

The lack of evidence to support the input tax claimed is sufficient to deny the claims that have been made. The decision made here is that HMRC does not have sufficient alternative evidence that can allow a claim to input tax to be made by the company.

As HMRC has not been provided with such evidence I am satisfied that Officer Mills is correct to deny the input tax claimed.

VAT assessment

I am satisfied that Officer Mills was correct to raise an assessment as the company has not produced satisfactory evidence to support the input tax that has been claimed.

…

The evidence I have seen

As noted above, I have considered the evidence that has been provided by representatives and I have also considered the various correspondences [sic] between your representatives and Officer Mills…”