header-logo header-logo

Value-added tax

31 January 2014
Issue: 7592 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Fonecomp Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2013] UKUT 0599 (TCC), [2014] All ER (D) 126 (Jan)

It was settled EU law that a taxable person who knew or should have known that, by his purchase, he had been taking part in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT should, for the purposes of the, be regarded as a participant in that fraud, irrespective of whether or not he had profited by the resale of the goods. Where it was ascertained, having regard to objective factors, that the supply was to a taxable person who knew or should have known that, by his purchase, he had been participating in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT, it was for the national court to refuse that person entitlement to the right to deduct. 

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll