Coracle Ventures Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 630 (TC) (27 September 2011)

Coracle Ventures Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 630 (TC) (27 September 2011)

The Tribunal found that there was a VAT loss occasioned by fraud, that the Appellant’s transactions were connected with that fraud, and that the Appellant, through its director Dr Williams, should have known that its transactions were connected to fraudulent evasion of VAT. The Appellant failed to take every precaution reasonably required to ensure its transactions were not connected with fraud. Therefore, the Appellant was not entitled to deduct the input VAT claimed.

Citation
[2011] UKFTT 630
Parties
Appellant: Coracle Ventures Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
27 September 2011
Procedural Posture
VAT Input Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Fraud, Input Tax Deduction, MTIC Fraud, Due Diligence, Fraudulent Evasion of VAT
Tax Law European Union Law VAT Fraud Input Tax Deduction MTIC Fraud Due Diligence Fraudulent Evasion of VAT

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coracle Ventures Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Input Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a VAT loss in the relevant transactions
  2. 2 Whether the VAT loss was occasioned by fraud
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant’s transactions were connected with fraudulent VAT loss

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that there was a VAT loss occasioned by fraud, that the Appellant’s transactions were connected with that fraud, and that the Appellant, through its director Dr Williams, should have known that its transactions were connected to fraudulent evasion of VAT. The Appellant failed to take every precaution reasonably required to ensure its transactions were not connected with fraud. Therefore, the Appellant was not entitled to deduct the input VAT claimed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Input VAT repayment claim of £206,696 disallowed
  • Assessment in the sum of £1,501.57 upheld