Kog v Revenue and Customs (VAT - option to tax - whether made - company failure to account for output tax on rent and proceeds of sale - company penalty due to deliberate inaccuracy by the appellant - PLN issued to appellant - direct knowledge of option - blind eye knowledge) [2026] UKFTT 40 (TC) (08 January 2026)
The appellant did not have direct knowledge of the option to tax at the time of filing the VAT return but had blind eye knowledge, having reason to suspect the property was opted and deliberately failing to confirm with HMRC. This constitutes deliberate inaccuracy, justifying the personal liability notice.
- Citation
- [2026] UKFTT 40
- Parties
- Appellant: Akin Kog; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 08 January 2026
- Procedural Posture
- VAT Appeal Against Personal Liability Notice / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- VAT, Option to Tax, Personal Liability Notice, Deliberate Inaccuracy, Blind Eye Knowledge, Company Director Liability
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Akin Kog
Appellant
The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Respondents
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal Against Personal Liability Notice / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is personally liable for a penalty due to deliberate inaccuracy in the company's VAT return regarding output tax on the sale of a property subject to an option to tax.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant did not have direct knowledge of the option to tax at the time of filing the VAT return but had blind eye knowledge, having reason to suspect the property was opted and deliberately failing to confirm with HMRC. This constitutes deliberate inaccuracy, justifying the personal liability notice.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Personal liability notice in the amount of £38,749.73 upheld against the appellant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment