Market leading insight for tax experts
View online issue

Megantic Services Ltd v HMRC (No 2)

In Megantic Services Ltd v HMRC (No 2) (Upper Tribunal – 11 January) a company (M) claimed a substantial repayment of VAT. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that it appeared that the relevant transactions formed part of a MTIC fraud. M appealed. HMRC made an application to admit evidence relating to certain transactions with a Curacao bank (F). M opposed the application but the tribunal granted it. Judge Berner observed that F’s business had been ‘effectively closed down’ following an investigation by the UK and Netherlands authorities and a raid on its premises. The delay in reviewing and processing the evidence obtained as a result of this investigation had not been unreasonable. The transactions at issue in this case were complex and the time taken in analysing the evidence was not disproportionate. The Upper Tribunal upheld this decision. Applying the principles laid down by Lawrence...

If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:

If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:

Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.
EDITOR'S PICKstar
Top