ICAS ICAS logo

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. Members
    1. Become a member
    2. Newly qualified
    3. Manage my membership
    4. Benefits of membership
    5. Careers 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
  6. Find a CA
  7. ICAS events
    1. CA Summit
  8. CA magazine
  9. Insight
    1. Finance + Trust
    2. Finance + 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 courses and qualifications
    2. CPD news and updates
    3. CPD support and advice
  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

Should taxpayer have known transactions were connected to fraud?

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

27 November 2020

Main points:

  • This case involves a challenge against the FTT’s decision that a connection to fraud should have been known.
  • The lack of precision in the FTT’s summary of the evidence heard created confusion on how they reached their decision.
  • The Upper Tribunal accepted the appeal and referred the case back to be heard again by a differently constituted tribunal.

Jan Garioch CA discusses a recent case, Revive Corporation Ltd v HMRC where the Upper Tribunal decides whether the FTT gave inadequate reasons for its decision and failed to apply the correct approach to the facts it found.

In Revive Corporation Ltd v HMRC the Upper Tribunal (UT) heard an appeal against the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision that Revive Corporation Limited (RCL) should have known that it was involved in transactions which were connected to fraud.

The problem

The background is that RCL was approached by a businessman who intended to buy electronic goods subject to VAT and sell them on without VAT to a purchaser belonging outside the UK. The businessman claimed to be unable to afford the cash flow cost of waiting for input VAT to be refunded by HMRC. Consequently, he proposed that RCL should step into the transaction by buying the goods from his company and selling them on to the customer belonging outside the UK.

For the purposes of the appeal to UT, the pertinent parts of the FTT’s judgement are that it held the only reasonable explanation for the deals challenged by HMRC was that they were connected with fraud and, furthermore, RCL should have known that they were connected with VAT fraud.

Was the FTT’s decision clear?

RCL appealed to the UT on the grounds that the FTT gave inadequate reasons for its decision and that it had not applied the correct approach to the facts that it found. The UT agreed to hear the appeal, and it is clear that it took issue with aspects of the FTT’s record of the case. The UT stated it was difficult to distinguish between uncontentious evidence which was not challenged in cross examination and contentious evidence which may well have been challenged before the FTT but with that challenge inadequately recorded.

Did the FTT apply the correct principles?

The FTT’s conclusion that RCL should have known that the relevant transactions were connected with fraudulent evasion came under the spotlight and two principles of law were put to the test.

Firstly, the ‘should have known’ condition would not be satisfied if there were a reasonable explanation for the transactions other than fraudulent evasion. Secondly, it is insufficient to show that it is more likely than not that the transactions were connected with evasion. It has to be shown that the transactions were connected with evasion and RCL should have known that.

The outcome

Given that the UT found it difficult merely to determine whether evidence was regarded as controversial or not, it is unsurprising that the FTT’s lack of factual findings failed to justify its dismissal of the alternative explanation of the transactions submitted by RCL. HMRC argued in vain that the FTT’s reasoning was clear; i.e. that it was unreasonable to think that a reputable businessman of good standing in his industry would be unable to finance the cash flow impact of input VAT by simply getting a bank loan. The UT was not satisfied. The FTT should have explained why it rejected RCL’s explanation as unreasonable. Consequently, the appeal succeeded and the case was remitted back to be heard by a differently constituted tribunal and should be limited to a determination of whether RCL ‘should have known’ that the challenged deals were connected with VAT fraud.

Justice must be seen to be done

This case spotlights that justice has to be seen to be done. HMRC pleaded in vain that RCL’s prior experience of MTIC fraud and denial of VAT repayments was so damning as to render it unnecessary to consider its alternative explanation. Although the UT agreed with them that there is no single correct way to structure a decision, it baulked at HMRC’s contention that a technical failure to give reasons cannot overturn a decision which was the only possible conclusion because the alternative was unreasonable. Instead, the UT regarded it as fundamental that a judgement has to allow the parties to understand why they have won or why they have lost.

Change proposed for VAT Recovery under Section 41 VATA 1994

By Jan Garioch CA

23 October 2020

VAT in a post Brexit environment

By Charlotte Barbour CA CTA (Fellow), Director of Taxation, ICAS

8 September 2020

2022-11-mitigo 2022-11-mitigo
ICAS logo

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.

ICAS logo

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: