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

The Upper Tribunal supported HMRC’s argument that the burden of proof regarding best judgement assessments did not switch from the appellant to them

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

31 July 2020

Main points:

  • This case involves a battle over best judgement assessments for over £6 million of VAT.
  • A complex paper trail suggested alcoholic drinks were sold in France but HMRC believed the drinks were sold for cash in the UK.
  • The Upper Tribunal supports the First Tier Tribunal decision but remakes it to give a more comprehensive explanation of the reasoning.

Jan Garioch CA discusses a recent case Awards Drinks Ltd v HMRC where HMRC suspect VAT is unaccounted for on sales of alcoholic drinks in the UK, and that the appellant’s paper trail showing otherwise is deliberate misdirection .

Background

The Upper Tribunal produced its judgement on Awards Drinks Ltd (ADL) v HMRC at the end of June 2020. At a time when trade across borders is high profile, this case involves two ‘best judgement’ assessments, totalling more than £6 million, being issued by HMRC in the belief that smuggled drinks were sold in the UK as a result of inward diversion fraud. That fraud involves goods held in duty suspension being supposedly released into a country where they face a low rate of duty, but in fact being smuggled into the UK where they are sold immediately for cash.  A complex paper trail for supposed transactions in the low duty country distracts from following the true transactions.

Proceedings at First Tier Tribunal

At the First Tier Tribunal, HMRC explained their assessments were based on 1311 large cash deposits paid into ADL’s bank account through various branches spread geographically around the UK. These deposits could not be reconciled to the alternative version of events put forward by ADL, namely that it sold drinks to wholesale customers in France, around the Calais area, for cash and couriered the money to the UK for deposit. The FTT was unimpressed that there were no declarations to French Customs that cash had been moved across border to the UK by ADL or those acting on its behalf. Its concerns about ADL’s version of events were further exacerbated because French authorities reported no visible activity at the headquarters of supposed customers and failure to reach any contacts for the companies. The FTT upheld the assessments because it found no evidence that payments had been made to ADL by the customers they claimed to have, and the facts they found did not support ADL’s submissions.

Grounds for appeal to the Upper Tribunal

ADL’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal was on two grounds. Firstly, FTT erred in law by failing to conclude that ADL could not have supplied goods in the UK because it had divested itself of possession of the goods outside the UK. ADL contended that the French transaction documents which it produced at FTT had gone unchallenged. Any challenge would necessarily have implied dishonesty and the requirements to establish dishonesty would have had to be met. In ADL’s view, if HMRC wished to uphold the assessments which were based on ADL having control of the goods in the UK, then it had to plead fraud against ADL. Effectively, what ADL sought was a reversal of the burden of proof. As its second ground of appeal, ADL argued the FTT had given insufficient reason for rejecting its argument.

The Upper Tribunal’s analysis

In its search for relevant case law, the UT found an important principle in Brady v Group Lotus Car Companies plc [1987] STC 635, that the burden of showing an assessment is incorrect lies on the taxpayer’s shoulders throughout an appeal even if the circumstances are such that there may have been fraudulent conduct on the part of the taxpayer which is relevant to the liability. HMRC’s position was to refute any allegation that they were alleging fraud or dishonesty by ADL. They relied upon Brady. Contrarily, ADL argued that HMRC was misconceived to rely upon Brady to avoid the burden of proof shifting to them. Having conceded that fraud or dishonesty was not alleged against ADL, the FTT could not uphold the assessments since they would inevitably have meant that ADL carried out smuggling.

The UT agreed with HMRC that it was a non sequitur for ADL to say that because HMRC did not assert that ADL had committed a fraud, that HMRC had thus conceded that ADL had lost possession and control of the goods and could not have supplied them in the UK. Instead, the burden lay on ADL’s shoulders to show that loss of possession had happened in France. The UT refused to accept that the French transaction documents which ADL had produced were, in fact, unchallenged at the FTT. Indeed, various deficiencies had been found. The UT found no requirement for HMRC to show the documents were fraudulently produced. It had been completely reasonable for the FTT to be convinced that HMRC had undermined the picture that ADL tried to draw of genuine sale of goods to genuine customers in France. Indeed, the UT went further and decided that the FTT would have erred in law if it had ignored the countervailing evidence and relied only on the documents ADL produced to decide the case.

On the second ground that the FTT’s decision provided insufficient reasoning, the UT felt some sympathy with ADL. The UT took the view that the FTT should have recited, a least briefly, the reasons why it decided not to accept the French transaction documents at face value. From the options available in this circumstance, the UT decided to remake the FTT decision. Consequently, the assessments were upheld with the remade FTT decision being more expansive on the evidence which undermined ADL’s case.

HMRC update on VAT payment deferral in the light of COVID-19

8 April 2020

COVID-19 – VAT deferment and requirement for full digital links delayed

By Charlotte Barbour, Director of Taxation and Susan Cattell, Head of Tax Technical Policy

31 March 2020

2-23-marsh 2-23-marsh
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: