• Home
  • Business taxes
  • Personal taxes
  • Capital taxes
  • International
  • VAT
  • Tax admin
  • Resources
  • Books
  • About
  • Contact
Claritax News
  • Home
  • Business taxes
  • Personal taxes
  • Capital taxes
  • International
  • VAT
  • Tax admin
  • Resources
  • Books
  • About
  • Contact
  • Business taxes
  • Personal taxes
  • Capital taxes
  • International
  • VAT
  • Tax admin
Claritax News

VAT – refusal of input VAT deduction when connected with fraudulent VAT evasion – Everyday Wholesale Ltd

30 Jan 2023

The First-tier Tribunal has rejected the appeal in Everyday Wholesale Ltd v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 60 (TC). The appellant had appealed assessments denying input VAT deductions on the grounds that the input tax was incurred in connection with the fraudulent evasion of VAT, and that the appellant either knew or should have known this.

The earlier Kittel judgment had established that “a taxable person who knew or should have known that, by his purchase, he was taking part in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT must, for the purposes of the Sixth Directive, be regarded as a participant in that fraud, irrespective of whether or not he profited by the resale of the goods”. 

The business owner, Mr Johal, who denied knowledge of fraud by other parties in his supply chain, was held to be an unreliable witness. In deciding this, the tribunal judged that, because of the lack of contemporaneous documents, it was correct to draw adverse inferences in respect of his evidence.

The tribunal judged that “on the balance of probabilities, Mr Johal, as the person to be attributed with the knowledge in relation to the appellant, had actual knowledge that the transactions the appellant undertook … were all connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT.” 

However, even if he had not actual knowledge then “the transactions in question were devoid of commercial reality to the extent that a taxpayer … should have known that the ‘only reasonable explanation’ for the transaction in which he was involved was that it was connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT. By that reckoning, Mr Johal ‘should have known of that fact’.”

Furthermore, “if a taxpayer chooses to turn a blind eye to the ‘only reasonable explanation’ being of fraud, or if he chooses not to make the necessary enquiries as concerns the legitimacy of a transaction as expected of a prudent trader, then the taxpayer ‘should have known’”.

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2023/TC08702.html

Related content from Claritax Books

Value Added Tax, written by Ciaran McGee MA (Oxon), FCA, CTA, is an extensive volume (over 1,000 pages), written primarily for non-VAT specialist accountants and tax advisers.

Value-Added-Tax

Latest articles (all topics)

  • Income tax self-assessment – HMRC encourage taxpayers to avoid stress by making an early start on their returns
  • The Social Security (Further Methods of Recovery) Regulations 2026
  • How to get authorised to act as a tax agent on behalf of your clients – HMRC update guidance
  • Compliance checks: prohibition of promotion of certain tax avoidance schemes – HMRC publish factsheet CC/FS91
Read more

Weekly email alerts

Sign up here for this free service.

wide banner

Recent Posts

  • Income tax self-assessment – HMRC encourage taxpayers to avoid stress by making an early start on their returns
  • The Social Security (Further Methods of Recovery) Regulations 2026
  • How to get authorised to act as a tax agent on behalf of your clients – HMRC update guidance
  • Compliance checks: prohibition of promotion of certain tax avoidance schemes – HMRC publish factsheet CC/FS91
  • R&D tax credits – HMRC publish official statistics

Recent Comments

No comments to show.

©2026 All Rights Reserved

Terms & Conditions | Privacy

Copy