UT/2023/000084 - [2024] UKUT 00382 (TCC)

The appellant (“Beigebell”) appeals against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) published as Beigebell Ltd (No. 2) v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 363 (TC) (“the FTT Decision” or “the Decision”). The FTT held that Beigebell knew that certain purchases Beigebell made of memory cards and Samsung SSDs (solid state drives) from a supplier in August/September 2015 were connected to fraud under the test in Kittel (Footnote: ¹). The FTT accordingly dismissed Beigebell’s appeal against HMRC’s refusal to make repayments of input tax totalling £144,628.40 and upheld a notice of assessment of £3,646.78.

With the permission of the FTT, Beigebell raises various grounds of appeal; these focus on the circumstances under which Beigebell had entered into the above transactions. Beigebell’s case was that the transactions had been pre-arranged by Ritesh Patel, a friend of Beigebell’s directors, and that because the company with which Mr Patel was involved could not fulfil the transaction due to alleged sales channel restrictions, Beigebell had agreed to step in and buy from the seller and sell to the buyer already found by Mr Patel. The FTT had held there was no such pre-arranged deal or deals.

For the reasons set out below we reject each of the grounds of appeal. Although we identified two errors of law (see Grounds 2 and 5), neither was material to the FTT Decision such that it should be set aside. We therefore dismiss Beigebell’s appeal.