In Golden Harvest Wholesale Ltd v HMRC [2020] UKFTT 369 (TC) (16 September 2020) the FTT allowed HMRC's application for costs against the sole director of the original appellant on the basis that his subsequent criminal conviction for cheating the public revenue was evidence that instructing the company's representative to bring the appeal in the tax tribunal was not legitimate and was an abuse of process.
Vikingo Fővállalkozó Kft. (Case C-610/19) (3 September 2020) was decided by order (without a full hearing) on the basis of settled case law. The CJEU held that meeting the substantive conditions for VAT recovery was sufficient to support the deduction of VAT unless the taxable person participated in fraud or knew or should have known that the transaction was connected with fraud.
In Golden Harvest Wholesale Ltd v HMRC [2020] UKFTT 369 (TC) (16 September 2020) the FTT allowed HMRC's application for costs against the sole director of the original appellant on the basis that his subsequent criminal conviction for cheating the public revenue was evidence that instructing the company's representative to bring the appeal in the tax tribunal was not legitimate and was an abuse of process.
Vikingo Fővállalkozó Kft. (Case C-610/19) (3 September 2020) was decided by order (without a full hearing) on the basis of settled case law. The CJEU held that meeting the substantive conditions for VAT recovery was sufficient to support the deduction of VAT unless the taxable person participated in fraud or knew or should have known that the transaction was connected with fraud.
