In Brendan Kelly v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 1012 – 7 November 2014 the FTT found that HMRC had not provided sufficient evidence of dishonest conduct.
Brendan Kelly purchased doors and windows from Bal4 Windows a UK company based in Northern Ireland and VAT registered in the UK. HMRC contended that the supplies were zero rated as Brendan Kelly used a VAT number from the Republic of Ireland belonging to a John Cullen. Brendan Kelly denied HMRC’s contentions.
HMRC’s evidence was mainly hearsay and although such evidence was acceptable the FTT noted that it carried little weight. This was even more so given that the individual who had provided the relevant information to HMRC did not appear as a witness and his reliability could therefore not be tested.
The FTT also noted that the appellant had fabricated evidence. There were clearly...
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:
In Brendan Kelly v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 1012 – 7 November 2014 the FTT found that HMRC had not provided sufficient evidence of dishonest conduct.
Brendan Kelly purchased doors and windows from Bal4 Windows a UK company based in Northern Ireland and VAT registered in the UK. HMRC contended that the supplies were zero rated as Brendan Kelly used a VAT number from the Republic of Ireland belonging to a John Cullen. Brendan Kelly denied HMRC’s contentions.
HMRC’s evidence was mainly hearsay and although such evidence was acceptable the FTT noted that it carried little weight. This was even more so given that the individual who had provided the relevant information to HMRC did not appear as a witness and his reliability could therefore not be tested.
The FTT also noted that the appellant had fabricated evidence. There were clearly...
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:
