![UT/2024/000070 - [2025] UKUT 00210 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Introduction
Introduction
This is an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”), published as H Ripley & Co Limited v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 125 (TC) (“the FTT Decision”). The FTT Decision upheld HMRC’s decision denying the Appellant’s claim to zero rated output tax of £1,176,161.34 72 arising on 72 transactions in scrap metal goods in the period 15 February 2016 to 1 September 2016.
The Appellant had not charged output tax on the basis that the goods had been removed outside the UK to Belgium and were thus zero-rated. Although there was no suggestion of fraud or bad faith, the FTT considered the evidence the Appellant had put forward to show the goods were removed was insufficient to meet the relevant conditions and time limits set out by HMRC regarding proof of evidence of removal in VAT Notice 725.
With the permission of the FTT, the Appellant appeals, alleging various errors of law, principally that the FTT wrongly expected the Appellant to require conclusive proof of removal, and arguing that the only reasonable conclusion the FTT could have been reached on the evidence was that the goods had been removed.
- Heading
- Introduction
- law
- Background and FTT Decision
- Grounds of appeal
- Ground 2 – failure to draw the only reasonable conclusion from the evidence
- Appellant’s Ground of Appeal
- Discussion
- Ground 3 – erroneous evidential standard – reliance on Griffiths v TUI in Court of Appeal – which was overturned in Supreme Court
- Ground 4 – FTT wrongly relied on terms of VAT Notice 725 to exclude P&O boarding cards and other supplementary evidence
- Discussion on Ground 4
- Ground 5 - failure to apply EU law
- Ground 6 – Failure to find evidence of commercial system
- Ground 1 – unacceptable delay
- Conclusions