4Site Services London Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC

15 February 2024

[2024] UKFTT 143 (TC)

First-tier Tribunal

A company and its directors were fighting HMRC over unpaid VAT. They tried to get HMRC kicked out of court and get extra information, but the judge said HMRC had a good case and the company had enough information already. Some appeals were put on hold, but the main fight will continue.

Key Facts

•4Site Services London Limited, Deepaman Prabhakar, and Carlos Darmoo appealed several HMRC assessments and penalties for VAT.
•The assessments were based on alleged fraudulent evasion of VAT by subcontractors (CMUS and GCorp) and failure to evidence entitlement to input tax credit.
•HMRC issued personal liability notices to Prabhakar and Darmoo for penalties.
•Multiple applications were made by the Appellant, including barring HMRC, further and better particulars, and exclusion of evidence.
•HMRC applied to join certain appeal references.

Legal Principles

Barring a party from proceedings if their position has no reasonable prospect of success.

Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, Rule 8(3)(c) and (7)(a)

Standard for granting summary judgment; 'realistic' prospect of success, not a 'mini-trial'.

First De Sales Ltd Partnership and others v HMRC [2018] UKUT 396 (TCC)

Further and better particulars should be granted if the statement of case doesn't enable the appellant to know the case they have to meet.

Ronald Hull Junior Limited v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 525 (TC)

Tribunal's power to admit or exclude evidence, considering fairness and the overriding objective.

Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, Rule 15

Test for unreasonable conduct in costs applications.

Market & Opinion Research International Ltd v HMRC [2015] UKUT 12 (TCC) and Distinctive Care Ltd v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 1010

Appeals against VAT assessments cannot be entertained unless the assessed amount is paid or a hardship application is granted.

Section 84(3) Value Added Taxes Act 1994 and Rule 22 FTT Rules

Outcomes

Appellant's application to bar HMRC was refused.

HMRC had a reasonable argument that there was a tax loss attributable to fraudulent evasion, even considering possible alternative explanations.

Both applications for further and better particulars were refused.

The statement of case and evidence provided sufficient information for the Appellant to understand the case against them.

Application to exclude Officer Stock's witness statement was refused.

The evidence was relevant and not merely duplicative.

Application to redact Officer Moore's statement was refused.

The challenged evidence was relevant to assessing the Appellant's knowledge and credibility.

Appellant's costs application was refused.

HMRC's joinder application was not unreasonable.

Extension of time granted and timetable revised for the appeal.

Time limits for service of witness statements had passed.

Section 73 Appeals were stayed pending the outcome of the Kittel Appeals.

To avoid conflicting decisions on conduct arising from the same factual backdrop.

4Site Services London Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Foundry Supplies UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Alex Harries t/a Glam Tanning and Beauty v The Commissioners for HMRC

Jeneruhl Trading Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC

Easy Work Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC

Ezy Solutions Ltd (in liquidation) v The Commissioners for HMRC