The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs v Tasca Tankers Limited [2022] UKUT 00088 (TCC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Edwin Johnson,Judge Andrew Scott |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] UKUT 00088 (TCC) |
| Subject Matter | 18 March 2022 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Published date | 23 March 2022 |
[2022] UKUT 00088 (TCC)
Appeal number: UT/2021/00075
PROCEDURE – application to strike out – whether FTT wrong to conclude that
appellants had no reasonable prospect of success – yes – whether to remit proceedings
to a differently constituted tribunal – yes
UPPER TRIBUNAL
(TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER)
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HM REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Appellants
-and-
TASCA TANKERS LIMITED
Respondent
Sitting in public at Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL on
9 February 2022
Joshua Carey, counsel, instructed by The General Counsel and Solicitor for Her
Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for the Appellants
Tim Brown, counsel, instructed by Independent VAT Consultants Limited for the
Respondent
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022
TRIBUNAL:
MR JUSTICE EDWIN JOHNSON
JUDGE ANDREW SCOTT
2
Introduction
1. This is the hearing of an appeal against the refusal of Judge Brannan, in the First-tier
Tribunal (“the FTT”), to strike out an appeal of the Respondent against a decision of
the Appellants, dated 13th October 2016, to deny input tax of £214,386.38, on the basis
that the Respondent knew or should have known that the relevant transactions were
connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT.
2. At the outset it is convenient, given the changing roles of the parties as appellant and
respondent in the proceedings, to refer to the Appellants in this appeal as HMRC, and
to refer to the Respondent in this appeal as Tasca.
3. The proceedings in the FTT are concerned with two decisions notified by HMRC to
Tasca.
4. The first decision, dated 29th June 2016, was that Tasca had failed to hold sufficient
evidence of dispatch to the Republic of Ireland to entitle it to a zero -rate on its supplies,
rather than charging output tax at the standard rate, for VAT periods 03/15-03/16. This
was extended by a further decision dated 23 August 2016 to include sales made in the
VAT period 06/16.
5. The second decision was dated 13 th October 2016 and related to Tasca’s inpu t tax for
VAT periods 12/14-06/16. The input tax was denied on the basis that Tasca knew or
should have known that its transactions were connected with the fraudulent evasion of
VAT in accordance with the Kittel principle (Axel Kittel v Belgium & Belgium v Recolta
Recycling SPRL C-439/04 and C-440/04 [2008] STC 1537). In other words, the second
decision involved what is commonly known as an “MTIC” denial of input tax (we have
added italics to quotations in this decision). The total amount of input tax involved in
the second decision is, as we have said, £214,386.38.
6. On 22nd February 2017 Tasca filed notices of appeal to the FTT against both of these
decisions. HMRC applied to strike out the appeal against the seco nd of the above
decision s. This application (“the Strike Out Application” ) was made, on 17th July 2019,
pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber)
Rules 2009. There was no application to strike out the appeal against the first of the
above decisions. Accordingly, the appeal to the FTT which was the subject of the Strike
Out Application (the appeal against the second of the above decisions) will be referred
to as “the Secon d Appeal”.
7. Rule 8(3)(c) permits the FTT to strike out the whole or part of proceedings in the FTT
if the FTT considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant’s case, or part
of it, succeeding.
8. The Strike Out Application was heard on 7th December 2020. Both HMRC and Tasca
were represented by cou nsel. By a decision (“the Decision”) released on 29 th January
2021 Judge Brannan (“the Judge”) refu sed the Strike Out Application and declined to
strike out the Second Appeal. The Judge also, by the Decision, refused an application
by Tasca to adduce additional evidence.
To continue reading
Request your trial