![UT/2023/000084 - [2024] UKUT 00382 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Heading
Neutral Citation: [2024] UKUT 00382 (TCC)
Case Number: UT/2023/000084
UPPER TRIBUNAL
(Tax and Chancery Chamber)
Rolls Building, London
VAT – MTIC appeal – whether FTT erred on burden of proof – no – Edwards v Bairstow challenge to findings of fact – errors of law advanced either rejected or found to be immaterial – appeal dismissed
Heard on: 6 November 2024
Judgment date: 26 November 2024
Before
JUDGE SWAMI RAGHAVAN
JUDGE ANNE REDSTON
Between
BEIGEBELL LIMITED (NO. 2)
Appellant
and
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents
Representation:
For the Appellant: Tim Brown, Counsel, instructed by Appleton Richardson & Co.
For the Respondents: James Puzey, Counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
DECISION
- 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