4Site Services London Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 143 (TC)
Jeneruhl Trading Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
7 August 2024
[2024] UKFTT 735 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company and its director appealed a large VAT bill. The director wanted to stop the tax authority from participating in the case, but the judge didn't allow it. The judge also said the company didn't need more information from the tax authority, but did grant access to some key documents to help them build their case regarding the timeframe of the tax authority's actions.
Key Facts
- •Jeneruhl Trading Ltd and Vivek Nayar appealed against a CLN issued to Nayar for a penalty related to VAT assessments against the company.
- •The assessments totaled £1,164,739 for VAT periods 07/19, 10/19, and 01/20.
- •HMRC alleged the company's transactions were connected with fraudulent VAT evasion.
- •Nayar's application to debar HMRC was considered, along with applications for further particulars and disclosure.
- •The case involved interpretation of sections 69C and 69D of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 regarding officer liability for company penalties.
- •Time limits for assessments under section 73 VATA 1994 were also at issue.
Legal Principles
Debarring a party from proceedings if there is no reasonable prospect of their case succeeding.
FTT Rules 8(3)(c) and 8(7)
Summary judgment principles (realistic vs. fanciful prospect of success; no mini-trial).
Easyair Limited v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch) and The First De Sales Limited Partnership v HMRC [2018] UKUT 396 (TCC)
Sections 69C and 69D VATA 1994 on transactions connected with VAT fraud and officer liability.
Value Added Tax Act 1994
Time limits for VAT recovery assessments under section 73 VATA 1994.
Section 73 VATA 1994
Principles for applications for further and better particulars (F&BP). Statement of case must enable appellant to know the case they have to meet.
4Site Services London Ltd and others [2024] UKFTT 00143, Alpha Republic Limited v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 750 (TC), Citibank NA v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 1063 (TC), Tejani v Fitzroy Plance Residential Ltd [2020] EWHC 1855 (TCC)
Principles for applications for specific disclosure. Consider relevance, necessity for fair determination, proportionality, and duty of candour.
Staysure.co.uk Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 584 and McCabe v HMRC [2020] UKUT 266
Burden of proof regarding time limits for assessments rests with the appellant.
Nottingham Forest Football Club Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKUT 145
HMRC's duty of candour.
Karulla (t/a Brockley’s Rock) v HMRC [2018] UKUT 255
Disclosure of documents is not an end in itself, but a means to ensure the tribunal has all necessary information.
HMRC v Smart Price Midlands Ltd and another [2019] EWCA Civ 841
Outcomes
Nayar's application to debar HMRC was rejected.
HMRC's case, though not solely reliant on Nayar's directorship, presented a realistic prospect of success based on evidence of his operational role and knowledge.
Appellants' application for further and better particulars was rejected.
The pleaded case, decision letter, and witness statement sufficiently informed the appellants of HMRC's case on the time limit issue.
Appellants' application for specific disclosure was partially allowed.
Disclosure of progress logs and draft means of knowledge submissions was ordered as potentially highly probative and necessary for a fair determination of the time limit issue, while broader requests were deemed disproportionate.