![UT/2023/000084 - [2024] UKUT 00382 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
We reject each of the grounds pursued. Beigebell’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE SWAMI RAGHAVAN
JUDGE ANNE REDSTON
Release date: 28 November 2024
- Heading
- Introduction
- FTT Decision and Background
- Ground 1 – burden of proof
- Ground 2 - the FTT erred in law when making a finding that Mr Orton was “neither credible nor reliable as a witness” by taking account of evidence it had earlier excluded
- The reference to excluded evidence
- Misunderstanding the evidence
- Ground 3 - the FTT Did not explain why Mr Orton had awareness of MTIC fraud just because he enquired to HMRC’s enquiry line about reverse charge on SD cards
- Ground 4 – The FTT was wrong to conclude that Mr Patel had not arranged the transactions between the Appellant’s supplier and customer
- Ground 5 – rejection of Mr Griffiths evidence
- Other submissions
- Conclusions