In Mobilx Ltd (in administration) v HMRC (No 2) (Supreme Court – 28 June) the Supreme Court dismissed the company’s application for leave to appeal against the CA decision reported at [2010] STC 1436 which is therefore final.
The company (M) had reclaimed input tax of more than £7 000 000 relating to purported transactions in computer chips.
HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that the transactions formed part of a ‘carousel fraud’.
The Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and dismissed M's appeal and the Ch D and CA unanimously upheld the Tribunal decision.
Moses LJ held that the ‘correct question’ was whether M ‘should have known that its transactions were connected with fraud’ and that ‘the primary facts found by the Tribunal did establish that the only reasonable explanation for the transactions in respect of...
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 Mobilx Ltd (in administration) v HMRC (No 2) (Supreme Court – 28 June) the Supreme Court dismissed the company’s application for leave to appeal against the CA decision reported at [2010] STC 1436 which is therefore final.
The company (M) had reclaimed input tax of more than £7 000 000 relating to purported transactions in computer chips.
HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that the transactions formed part of a ‘carousel fraud’.
The Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and dismissed M's appeal and the Ch D and CA unanimously upheld the Tribunal decision.
Moses LJ held that the ‘correct question’ was whether M ‘should have known that its transactions were connected with fraud’ and that ‘the primary facts found by the Tribunal did establish that the only reasonable explanation for the transactions in respect of...
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:
