In HMRC v Greener Solutions Ltd (Upper Tribunal – 20 January) a company (G) reclaimed input tax of £176 000 in respect of the purchase of a quantity of mobile telephones. HMRC rejected the claim on the grounds that the transaction was connected with MTIC fraud. The First-tier Tribunal allowed G’s appeal (TC00682) finding that an individual (M) who had acted as an agent for G knew that the transaction formed part of a fraud but holding that M’s knowledge could not be imputed to G. However the Upper Tribunal reversed this decision and upheld HMRC’s rejection of the claim.
Warren J held that on the evidence M’s knowledge of the fraud should be attributed to G applying the principles laid down by the Privy Council in Meridian Global Funds Management Asia v Securities Commission...
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 HMRC v Greener Solutions Ltd (Upper Tribunal – 20 January) a company (G) reclaimed input tax of £176 000 in respect of the purchase of a quantity of mobile telephones. HMRC rejected the claim on the grounds that the transaction was connected with MTIC fraud. The First-tier Tribunal allowed G’s appeal (TC00682) finding that an individual (M) who had acted as an agent for G knew that the transaction formed part of a fraud but holding that M’s knowledge could not be imputed to G. However the Upper Tribunal reversed this decision and upheld HMRC’s rejection of the claim.
Warren J held that on the evidence M’s knowledge of the fraud should be attributed to G applying the principles laid down by the Privy Council in Meridian Global Funds Management Asia v Securities Commission...
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:
