Bliss Trading Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 740 (TC) (15 November 2011)

Bliss Trading Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 740 (TC) (15 November 2011)

The Tribunal found that the Appellant’s transactions were connected to fraudulent VAT losses and that the Appellant, through its director Mr. Yarde, had actual knowledge of this connection. The Tribunal did not find Mr. Yarde to be a credible witness, rejected the Appellant’s arguments regarding lack of knowledge and due diligence, and held that the burden of proof was satisfied by HMRC. Accordingly, the input tax claim was denied.

Citation
[2011] UKFTT 740 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Bliss Trading Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
15 November 2011
Procedural Posture
VAT MTIC Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Input Tax Denial, MTIC Fraud, Knowledge of Fraud, Due Diligence, Tracing of Supplies
Tax Law VAT Law Input Tax Denial MTIC Fraud Knowledge of Fraud Due Diligence Tracing of Supplies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bliss Trading Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT MTIC Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant's transactions were connected to fraudulent VAT losses
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant knew or ought to have known of the connection to fraud
  3. 3 Whether the evidence of the Appellant’s director was trustworthy

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Appellant’s transactions were connected to fraudulent VAT losses and that the Appellant, through its director Mr. Yarde, had actual knowledge of this connection. The Tribunal did not find Mr. Yarde to be a credible witness, rejected the Appellant’s arguments regarding lack of knowledge and due diligence, and held that the burden of proof was satisfied by HMRC. Accordingly, the input tax claim was denied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Input tax claim of £241,500 denied
  • No order as to costs specified