Butt v Revenue & Customs (VAT - PENALTIES : Evasion) [2015] UKFTT 510 (TC) (13 October 2015)

Butt v Revenue & Customs (VAT - PENALTIES : Evasion) [2015] UKFTT 510 (TC) (13 October 2015)

The Tribunal found that Waterfire Ltd, through the conduct of Mr Butt as director, engaged in transactions that were part of a scheme to evade VAT, that the conduct involved dishonesty, and that the penalty imposed was lawfully attributable to Mr Butt under s.61 VATA 1994. The Tribunal rejected arguments that the right to silence or ECHR/Charter rights were breached and found the penalty proportionate.

Citation
[2015] UKFTT 510
Parties
Appellant: Umaad Butt; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
13 October 2015
Procedural Posture
VAT Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Evasion, Civil Penalties, Director Liability, Dishonesty, Right to Silence, Proportionality, Contra Trading, MTIC Fraud, Article 6 and 7 ECHR, Articles 49 and 50 EU Charter
Tax Law European Law Human Rights Law VAT Evasion Civil Penalties Director Liability Dishonesty Right to Silence +5 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Umaad Butt

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Waterfire Ltd, through its director Mr Butt, acted dishonestly for the purpose of evading VAT under s.60 VATA 1994
  2. 2 Whether the conduct was attributable to Mr Butt's dishonesty under s.61 VATA 1994
  3. 3 Whether the penalty imposed was proportionate and lawfully issued

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that Waterfire Ltd, through the conduct of Mr Butt as director, engaged in transactions that were part of a scheme to evade VAT, that the conduct involved dishonesty, and that the penalty imposed was lawfully attributable to Mr Butt under s.61 VATA 1994. The Tribunal rejected arguments that the right to silence or ECHR/Charter rights were breached and found the penalty proportionate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The penalty of £3,137,483.03 imposed on Mr Butt pursuant to s.61 VATA 1994 is upheld.
  • No reduction in penalty is ordered.