Turner v Revenue and Customs (VAT - Company officer's liability penalty) [2024] UKFTT 495 (TC) (06 June 2024)

Turner v Revenue and Customs (VAT - Company officer's liability penalty) [2024] UKFTT 495 (TC) (06 June 2024)

Input tax was correctly denied to Loy Commodities Limited under Kittel grounds because HMRC proved, on balance of probabilities, that Loy knew or should have known its transactions were connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT. The company's conduct was attributable to Mr Turner as sole director, justifying imposition of officer's liability penalty under VATA sections 69C and 69D.

Citation
[2024] UKFTT 495 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Gary Turner; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
06 June 2024
Procedural Posture
VAT Officer's Liability Penalty Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Fraud, Company Officer Liability, Input Tax Denial, Kittel Principle, Penalties Under VATA
Tax Law VAT Company Law VAT Fraud Company Officer Liability Input Tax Denial Kittel Principle Penalties Under VATA

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Turner

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Officer's Liability Penalty Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether input tax was correctly denied to Loy Commodities Limited under Kittel grounds
  2. 2 Whether Loy knew or should have known its transactions were connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT
  3. 3 Whether Loy's conduct was attributable to Mr Turner

Ratio Decidendi

Input tax was correctly denied to Loy Commodities Limited under Kittel grounds because HMRC proved, on balance of probabilities, that Loy knew or should have known its transactions were connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT. The company's conduct was attributable to Mr Turner as sole director, justifying imposition of officer's liability penalty under VATA sections 69C and 69D.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Officer's liability penalty of £107,306.55 upheld against Mr Gary Turner
  • Extension of time for appeal granted