JHA LLP | London Tax Disputes Solicitors & Barristers

VAT Umbrella Appeals Decision

16 April 2024

Author: JHA

VAT Umbrella Appeals Decision

On 27 March 2024, the Tax Tribunal released its Decision in the VAT Umbrella Appeals.

Subject to onward appeals to the Upper Tribunal, the practical consequence of the Decision is that the Lead Appellants (i) should not have had had their VAT registrations cancelled (ii) and should have their VAT registrations reinstated from the date of de-registration (iii) and were not entitled to use the FRS and EA. The Tribunal has not yet made directions in respect of the effect of the Decision on the Related Cases (which were stayed pending the Decision in the Lead Appeals).

The Tribunal decided the Lead Appeals in the following way:

It allowed the Appeal against VAT de-registration.
It dismissed the Appeal against cancellation of authorisation for participation in the VAT Flat Rate Scheme (“FRS”).
It dismissed the Appeal against the Employment Allowance (“EA”) decision.

In summary, the Tribunal found:

That “there were objective grounds for concluding that the VAT numbers of the Lead Appellants were used for fraudulent purposes” [347], despite there being “no specific allegations particularised in the SOC that any individual or corporate entity is dishonest or has knowingly committed fraudulent acts” and “that neither the words “dishonest” nor “dishonestly” appears anywhere in the SOC” [331 and 332].
That HMRC’s argument on Ablessio could not succeed “in the absence of any knowledge by the directors of the Lead Appellants that they were facilitating (enabling) the fraud of another” [353], it having not been “pleaded or put [by HMRC] to the directors of the Lead Appellants” and that the Lead Appellants “were all helpful witnesses who gave credible accounts of their roles and involvement with their respective companies” [27].
That HMRC’s decision to cancel FRS authorisation in respect of the Lead Appellants was reasonable “for protection of the Revenue” [358], despite HMRC having not contacted any of the Mini Umbrella Companies before de-registering them [359] and the model having been the subject of professional advice [359].
That the Lead Appellants were not entitled to qualify for EA [363].

A link to the Decision can be found here.

The Lead Appellants intend to appeal the Decision.

Return to List of Articles by UK Lawyers on Tax Disputes, Tax Litigation, HMRC Tax Appeal

Return to Listings

Left Button on Tax Dispute & Tax Litigation Lawyers in London

Our Insights

Insights from UK Tax Dispute Lawyers & HMRC Tax litigation

JHA ranked in top tier again in Legal 500 UK 2025

We are happy to announce that JHA's Tax Disputes Team has again been ranked as Tier 1 by Legal 500 today, a ranking we have proudly achieved every year since we began in 2013. A special congratulations to Graham Aaronson KC who has again been recognised in the Hall of Fame category, Iain MacWhannell (ranked as a Leading Partner) and Mei Wong (ranked as a Leading Associate).

This is the latest successful ranking, following previous top-tier rankings in Chambers UK Legal Guide 2024 and Chambers High Net Worth Guide 2024.

Q&A: transfer pricing methods in United Kingdom

Graham Aaronson, Michael Anderson and Steve Bousher provide answers to common questions on transfer pricing methods.

Changes to the UK’s Special Tax Regime for Foreign Income and Gains

With much uncertainty surrounding the end to the non-domicile regime, Helen McGhee and Lynnette Bober provide a helpful summary of the (currently) anticipated changes.

Much ado about non-doms: the new policy paper

Just when we thought we would have to wait for the 30 October Budget for more detail around the new non-dom tax rules, the new government published a policy paper on the changes to the taxation of UK resident foreign domiciled individuals on 29 July giving additional insight. This article is divided into two parts. The first looks at the policy paper itself and the how it adds to what we knew previously. The second part provides an overview of the anticipated new regime incorporating our newly acquired knowledge.

Armour Veterinary Group v HMRC – Warning for Partnership Personnel Changes?

In this decision, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) dismissed an appeal against discovery assessments which disallowed amortisation relief claimed by the Appellant company for three types of goodwill acquired from a partnership. The decision examined the applicability of each of the circumstances set out in s882 CTA 2009 before concluding none of them had been satisfied. It also provided guidance on the meaning of carrying on a business pursuant to s884 CTA 2009. In rejecting the appeal, the FTT reached a number of key conclusions:

partners can potentially rebut the presumption that individual partners do not own the goodwill of the business (in whole or part) by expressly recording the division in a partnership agreement;
whether a partner is an equity or salaried partner has no bearing on whether they can be treated as carrying on the business for the purpose of s884;
when determining whether and when a partner carries on a business, the FTT will consider, inter alia, (1) if they are in a partnership as per the definition in s1 of the Partnership Act 1890 and (2) their role in the day-to-day running of the practice;
a fundamental aspect of the self-assessment regime is that taxpayers must ensure that they retain adequate records (backed up by an external valuation as relevant in the case of a goodwill transfer) sufficient to support the information provided in their returns, including evidence to support claims made for relief.

Right Button on Tax Dispute & Tax Litigation Lawyers in London

View Our Insights