Late Editions Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 166 (TC) (14 July 2009)

Late Editions Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 166 (TC) (14 July 2009)

The Tribunal found that all eight transactions were part of supply chains leading to defaulting traders who fraudulently evaded VAT, and that the Appellant, given the circumstances and the nature of the trade, either knew or should have known of the connection to fraud. The Appellant's due diligence was insufficient to discharge its responsibility under the Kittel principle. The evidence, including documentary and hearsay, was properly admitted and given appropriate weight. The absence of Kittel in UK statute did not affect the application of the principle.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 166
Parties
Appellant: Late Editions Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 July 2009
Procedural Posture
VAT Input Tax Appeal (mtic Fraud) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Input Tax Denial, MTIC Fraud, Evidentiary Rules in Tribunal, Knowledge Requirement in VAT Fraud, Application of Kittel ECJ
Tax Law VAT Law Administrative Law European Union Law Input Tax Denial MTIC Fraud Evidentiary Rules in Tribunal Knowledge Requirement in VAT Fraud +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Late Editions Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Input Tax Appeal (mtic Fraud) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant's input tax claims should be denied on the basis that its transactions were connected with fraudulent VAT evasion (MTIC fraud) and whether the Appellant knew or should have known of this connection.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence, including hearsay and documentary evidence, was properly admitted and what weight should be given to it.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of Kittel ECJ principles in UK statute affects the outcome.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that all eight transactions were part of supply chains leading to defaulting traders who fraudulently evaded VAT, and that the Appellant, given the circumstances and the nature of the trade, either knew or should have known of the connection to fraud. The Appellant's due diligence was insufficient to discharge its responsibility under the Kittel principle. The evidence, including documentary and hearsay, was properly admitted and given appropriate weight. The absence of Kittel in UK statute did not affect the application of the principle.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Input tax claims totalling £1,052,380 for the eight transactions in April 2006 are refused.
  • No further orders as to costs or directions.