In Europeans Ltd v HMRC (No 3) (Ch D – 13 April) a company (E) had reclaimed substantial amounts of input tax in relation to transactions in mobile telephones which it claimed to have sold to a Luxembourg trader.
Customs rejected the claim on the grounds that the transactions formed part of a ‘missing trader intra-Community fraud’. The VAT Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and dismissed E’s appeal (VTD 20883) concluding that E’s controlling director ‘did not give truthful evidence’ and that ‘he did know when entering into the five transactions that they were part of a fraudulent chain’.
The company appealed to the High Court but failed to pursue the appeal. The Ch D struck out the appeal and awarded costs to HMRC (8 May 2009 unreported). Six days after the...
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 Europeans Ltd v HMRC (No 3) (Ch D – 13 April) a company (E) had reclaimed substantial amounts of input tax in relation to transactions in mobile telephones which it claimed to have sold to a Luxembourg trader.
Customs rejected the claim on the grounds that the transactions formed part of a ‘missing trader intra-Community fraud’. The VAT Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and dismissed E’s appeal (VTD 20883) concluding that E’s controlling director ‘did not give truthful evidence’ and that ‘he did know when entering into the five transactions that they were part of a fraudulent chain’.
The company appealed to the High Court but failed to pursue the appeal. The Ch D struck out the appeal and awarded costs to HMRC (8 May 2009 unreported). Six days after the...
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:
