header-logo header-logo

Tax

24 March 2011
Issue: 7458 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Brayfal Ltd, [2011] All ER (D) 139 (Mar)

It was well established that a taxable person who knew or should have known that the transaction which he was undertaking was connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT was to be regarded as a participant and failed to meet the objective criteria which determined the scope of the right to deduct.

If a taxpayer had the means at his disposal of knowing that by his purchase he was participating in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT he lost his right to deduct, not as a penalty for negligence, but because the objective criteria for the scope of that right were not met. The principle did not extend to circumstances in which a taxable person should have known that by his purchase it had been more likely than not that his transaction had been connected with fraudulent evasion. The test was simple and should not be over-refined.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll