HMRC loses £2.4m VAT repayment appeal

Community Correspondent
Sift Media
Share this content

HMRC’s application to appeal a £2.4m VAT refund to mobile phone trading companies Unistar Group and Unistar Trading has been rejected.

The companies won their appeal against the Revenue’s refusal to repay the VAT in Unistar Group Ltd & Unistar Trading Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 344 (TC) (19/02/2013) in January this year at a first tier tax tribunal at Manchester Crown Court.

The VAT was withheld due to extended verification by HMRC as they wished the companies to demonstrate they...

Please Login or Register to read the full article


Please login or register to join the discussion.


Did they actually get the criminals?

or was it just a case of taking out the innocent!

Thanks (0)

Easy option

The Black Knight wrote:

Did they actually get the criminals?

or was it just a case of taking out the innocent!


That sounds just like HMRC. They always go for the easy option

Thanks (0)


My firm were acting accountants for UGL & UTL. HMRC stance was a "blanket" stance issued by Red Dawn Primo. My clients have spent six years fighting HMRC over this matter. The effects on my client's business and lifestyle were severe.HMRC have no concept on the damage caused by their actions on this case. We are still waiting for an apology.

Thanks (1)


Much as your clients deserve an unreserved apology, HMRC do not appear to be in the habit of apologising for anything. Good luck with that one.

Thanks (0)

I do like that bit

"A spokesperson for HMRC said that the refusal to appeal left them “naturally disappointed” as it had largely driven MTIC fraud out of the mobile phone sector, to the benefit of the legitimate fraud."


to the benefit of the legitimate fraud!

Gives you some idea where HMRC are coming from and would certainly explain their behaviour if they were on the criminals payroll.

Thanks (0)


HMRC were clueless. They still are. My client's were dealing direct with blue chip companies and acredited distributors. The vast majority of frauds occured (if actually occured at all) 8 or 9 suppliers down the supply chain. HMRC could not accept that my client was not involved in any carasal fraud. If client my was involved with criminals they would have been prosecuted accordingly. This case has been a waste of public money. HMRC costs on this case must be close to seven figures.

Thanks (0)

an oxymoron, surely!

Can HMRC point in their manuals to the definition of 'legitimate fraud'. Is it like mercy killing or mothballs, perhaps?

Thanks (0)

oxymoron? HMRC you mean!

poxy morons even

Thanks (0)