VAT Consultant vatadvice.org
Columnist
Share this content
Tags:

VAT is not to do with ‘fairness’

6th Jul 2020
VAT Consultant vatadvice.org
Columnist
Share this content

I did feel some sympathy for Nicholas and Charlotte Sandham.

They traded in scrap metals. They engaged an agent, a Mr France, to buy and sell more valuable ‘primary metals’ on their behalf.

There was no formal written contract between the Sandhams and Mr France. What they didn’t know was Mr France’s track record (including deceit, bankruptcy, etc). (Should they not have checked his history?) This was in contrast with the Sandhams own ‘impeccable’ record.

Mr France entered into 56 (that’s fifty six) transactions that he knew were related to fraudulent transactions resulting in VAT losses. HMRC disallowed the input tax on the basis that the Sandhams should have known that the transactions were related to VAT losses.

The Upper Tier considered the ‘attribution’ of knowledge from the agent to the principal. There is a certain inevitability about the argument here.

We do not consider that analysis of context to be based on general considerations of “fairness”. On the contrary, it is based on an analysis of the nature of the legal duty in connection with which the question of attribution arose.

Although Mr France has acted outside of the terms of his agreement with Mr & Mrs Sandham, his conduct was still legally binding upon them.

This short decision follows a very clear logic, doubtless leaving Mr & Mrs Sandham further out of pocket.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5eeb7b4686650c2d3357c679/Sandham_as_Premier_Metals_v_HMRC.pdf

Tags:

Replies (1)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Justin Bryant
08th Jul 2020 10:14

Yes; it's interesting how getting VAT wrong can cause you to blow up (under a civil standard of proof and limited liability via a company is no help in many cases). No wonder so many people try to avoid being VAT registered in the 1st place.

Thanks (0)