ICAS

Quicklinks

  1. About Us

    Find out about who we are and what we do here at ICAS.

  2. Find a CA

    Search our directory of individual CAs and Member organisations by name, location and professional criteria.

  3. CA Magazine

    View the latest issues of the dedicated magazine for ICAS Chartered Accountants.

  4. Contact Us

    Get in touch with ICAS by phone, email or post, with dedicated contacts for Members, Students and firms.

Login
  • Annual renewal
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Find a CA
  1. About us
    1. Governance
    2. ICAS Strategy 2030
  2. Members
    1. Become a member
    2. Newly qualified
    3. Manage my membership
    4. Benefits of membership
    5. Career support
    6. Mentoring
    7. CA Wellbeing
    8. More for Members
    9. Area networks
    10. International communities
    11. Get involved
    12. Top Young CAs
    13. Career breaks
    14. ICAS podcast
    15. Newly admitted members 2022
    16. Newly admitted members 2023
  3. CA Students
    1. Student information
    2. Student resources
    3. Learning requirements
    4. Learning updates
    5. Learning blog
    6. Totum Pro | Student discount card
    7. CA Student wellbeing
  4. Become a CA
    1. How to become a CA
    2. Routes to becoming a CA
    3. CA Stories
    4. Find a training agreement
    5. Why become a CA
    6. Qualification information
    7. University exemptions
  5. Employers
    1. Become an Authorised Training Office
    2. Resources for Authorised Training Offices
    3. Professional entry
    4. Apprenticeships
    5. Learning redefined
  6. Find a CA
  7. ICAS events
    1. CA Summit
  8. CA magazine
  9. Insight
    1. Finance + Trust
    2. Technology
    3. Finance + EDI
    4. Finance + Mental Fitness
    5. Finance + Leadership
    6. Finance + Sustainability
  10. Professional resources
    1. Anti-money laundering
    2. Audit and assurance
    3. Brexit
    4. Business and governance
    5. Charities
    6. Coronavirus
    7. Corporate and financial reporting
    8. Cyber security
    9. Ethics
    10. Insolvency
    11. ICAS Research
    12. Pensions
    13. Practice
    14. Public sector
    15. Sustainability
    16. Tax
  11. CPD - professional development
    1. CPD - Everything you need to know
    2. CPD courses and qualifications
    3. CPD news and updates
    4. CPD support and advice
    5. Career support
  12. Regulation
    1. Complaints and sanctions
    2. Regulatory authorisations
    3. Guidance and help sheets
    4. Regulatory monitoring
  13. CA jobs
    1. CA jobs partner: Rutherford Cross
    2. Resources for your job search
    3. Advertise with CA jobs
    4. Hays | A Trusted ICAS CA Jobs Partner
    5. Azets | What's your ambition?
  14. Work at ICAS
    1. Business centres
    2. Meet our team
    3. Benefits
    4. Vacancies
    5. Imagine your career at ICAS
  15. Contact us
    1. Technical and regulation queries
    2. ICAS logo request

Missing trader fraud

shutterstock_36494
  • LinkedIn (opens new window)
  • Twitter (opens new window)
By Jan Garioch CA

20 July 2021

Key points:

  • HMRC failed at FTT to deny input VAT recovery on a full list of deals which they considered to be fraudulent.
  • On appeal to the UT, the focus fell on concessions made in the respondent’s original statement of case.
  • The UT was unequivocal in its view that the FTT should not have ignored these concessions and held that HMRC was entitled to deny input VAT recovery.

Jan Garioch CA discusses the case Alan McCord (T/A Hi-Octane) v HMRC UT/2019/0042(V) where the Upper Tribunal (UT) heard HMRC’s appeal against the FTT decision which did not support their denial of input VAT recovery.

Background

In this missing trader fraud case of HMRC v Alan McCord (T/A Hi-Octane Imports) UT/2019/0042(V) it was common ground from the outset of this dispute that the four requirements to allow HMRC to deny credit for input VAT are:

  1. a loss of VAT
  2. resulting from fraudulent evasion
  3. Hi-Octane’s purchase of vehicles must be connected with that fraudulent evasion, and
  4. Hi-Octane needed to know or have the means of knowing that its purchases were connected with fraud.

The FTT’s decision, which was the subject of this appeal, was that these conditions were not satisfied in some of the transactions put before them by HMRC.

The FTT had denied HMRC the right to withhold input VAT recovery in certain transactions where the seller had not submitted any VAT return. The FTT decided it could not be shown for those deals that any VAT charged to the appellant was inevitably going to be both due and unpaid because the seller might have been a “buffer” in the missing trader scheme. A “buffer” is a trader buying and selling for a small profit who is inserted between a defaulting trader and a subsequent exporter who reclaims VAT. Only a small amount of VAT would be due from a “buffer.”

The Grounds of Appeal

HMRC challenged the FTT decision on the grounds that in Hi-Octane’s skeleton argument to the FTT, it had effectively conceded that the parties from which it made purchases were responsible for fraudulent loss of VAT. Consequently, HMRC argued that the FTT was not entitled to make a contrary finding. It was unfair for the FTT to deny HMRC the opportunity to address that issue, which it would have done if the FTT had indicated it was thinking of disregarding what Hi-Octane conceded in its skeleton argument. Hi-Octane’s counter argument was that there was nothing wrong in the FTT approach, since it had the duty to find relevant facts and HMRC had the burden of proof for all parts of its case.

Crucial concessions by Hi-Octane

The UT found that in preparation for the FTT hearing, Hi-Octane was required to confirm whether it agreed the accuracy of HMRC’s “deal sheets.” These set out HMRC’s understanding of the fraudulent VAT loss in all of the transactions covered by the appeal. Hi-Octane stated in its skeleton argument that it “does not take any umbrage with the suggestion of a tax loss or indeed the deal chains referred”. Later in its skeleton argument, it “concedes that the tax losses as set out by the Respondent occurred, as stated by them”.

The UT’s decision

The UT came down emphatically in favour of HMRC. It found that nothing before or during the FTT hearing suggested to HMRC that they needed to explain their case on why tests 1 to 3 above (i.e., that there was a loss of VAT resulting from fraudulent evasion that was connected to Hi-Octane’s purchases of vehicles) were satisfied. HMRC considered that Hi-Octane had conceded the point and the FTT did not indicate it had reservations to be allayed. It was not until HMRC opened the decision on the case that HMRC would have been aware that they had lost on an aspect of the case which they would have had no reason to suspect was even in dispute. In strong wording the UT says, “The word ‘ambush’ is sometimes overused in litigation. We do not consider it an overstatement to say that in these proceedings regrettably HMRC were ambushed, not by their opponent, but by the FTT itself”.

Since the FTT was wrong in law to even consider whether tests 1 to 3 were satisfied, when they had been conceded, the FTT’s decision was set aside.

The UT did not refer back for reconsideration but decided to remake the decision. Since the FTT itself had concluded that the deals in question were “obviously contrived and too good to be true”, it should have denied input VAT recovery if it had correctly regarded tests 1 to 3 as satisfied. Therefore, the UT remade the decision to deny input VAT recovery to Hi-Octane.

Dispute over input VAT connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT

By Jan Garioch, CA

18 December 2018

2023-05-newbrand 2023-05-newbrand

Footer links

  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions
  • Modern slavery statement
  • Privacy notice
  • CA magazine

Connect with ICAS

  • Facebook (opens new window) Facebook Icon
  • Twitter (opens new window) Twitter Icon
  • LinkedIn (opens new window) LinkedIn Icon
  • Instagram (opens new window) Instagram Icon

ICAS is a member of the following bodies

  • Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (opens new window) Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies logo
  • Chartered Accountants Worldwide (opens new window) Chartered Accountants Worldwide logo
  • Global Accounting Alliance (opens new window) Global Accounting Alliance
  • International Federation of Accountants (opens new window) IFAC
  • Access Accountancy (opens new window) Access Acountancy

Charities

  • ICAS Foundation (opens new window) ICAS Foundation
  • SCABA (opens new window) scaba

Accreditations

  • ISO 9001 - RGB (opens new window)
© ICAS 2022

The mark and designation “CA” is a registered trade mark of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS), and is available for use in the UK and EU only to members of ICAS. If you are not a member of ICAS, you should not use the “CA” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to accountancy, tax or insolvency services. The mark and designation “Chartered Accountant” is a registered trade mark of ICAS, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales and Chartered Accountants Ireland. If you are not a member of one of these organisations, you should not use the “Chartered Accountant” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to these services. Further restrictions on the use of these marks also apply where you are a member.

Our cookie policy

ICAS.com uses cookies which are essential for our website to work. We would also like to use analytical cookies to help us improve our website and your user experience. Any data collected is anonymised. Please have a look at the further information in our cookie policy and confirm if you are happy for us to use analytical cookies: