VAT recovery denied on basis of connection with fraud was not ‘deliberate’ conduct
In K Bachra v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 91 (TC) (30 January 2023) the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) held that an inaccuracy arising because the taxpayer ‘should have known’ that transactions were connected to VAT fraud was not ‘deliberate’ conduct for the purposes of calculating penalties.
The appellant (Mrs Bachra) operated a cash and carry business. HMRC denied the business VAT recovery on a significant number of wholesale alcohol purchases made between 2014 and 2016 under the Kittel (Case C-439/04 and C-440/04)principle (the principle that HMRC may deny VAT recovery to a business if it knew or should have known that transactions were connected with VAT fraud). HMRC also charged a penalty which was calculated on the basis that the ‘inaccuracy’ was deliberate and disclosure was prompted.
The FTT looked first at whether the Kittel principle was satisfied....
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
VAT recovery denied on basis of connection with fraud was not ‘deliberate’ conduct
In K Bachra v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 91 (TC) (30 January 2023) the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) held that an inaccuracy arising because the taxpayer ‘should have known’ that transactions were connected to VAT fraud was not ‘deliberate’ conduct for the purposes of calculating penalties.
The appellant (Mrs Bachra) operated a cash and carry business. HMRC denied the business VAT recovery on a significant number of wholesale alcohol purchases made between 2014 and 2016 under the Kittel (Case C-439/04 and C-440/04)principle (the principle that HMRC may deny VAT recovery to a business if it knew or should have known that transactions were connected with VAT fraud). HMRC also charged a penalty which was calculated on the basis that the ‘inaccuracy’ was deliberate and disclosure was prompted.
The FTT looked first at whether the Kittel principle was satisfied....
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")