Easy Work Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC

With the consent of the parties, the form of the hearing was V (video). All participants attended by video link using the Tribunal’s own video hearing system. A face to face hearing was not held because the original hearing was listed by video due to pandemic restrictions and upon relisting it became apparent that geographical constraints and the convenience of the parties would make it difficult to hold an “in person” hearing which was convenient to all parties and the panel.

The documents to which we were referred consisted of a main document bundle of 4,686 pages, a supplemental bundle of 503 pages and an authorities bundle of 144 pages. In addition, we were provided (by way of attachments to HMRC’s skeleton argument) with two tables which served as reference documents to assist us in finding relevant documents in the main bundles. These two documents were referred to as “Schedule of Tax Loss Examples” (5 pages) and “Schedule of VAT submissions and denials” (a spreadsheet pulling together details of all VAT submissions and input tax disallowances, providing page references to the relevant documents in the document bundles). We were also provided with an electronic folder containing copies of the original Excel spreadsheets and paper VAT summaries which had been submitted to HMRC at various stages in support of the VAT returns which had been made by the various traders involved.

Prior notice of the hearing had been published on the gov.uk website, with information about how representatives of the media or members of the public could apply to join the hearing remotely in order to observe the proceedings. As such, the hearing was held in public.

These joined appeals concerned what HMRC considered to be a fraudulent scheme, masterminded by the third Appellant (“Mr Beckford”, or “APAS”), involving multiple allegedly connected VAT-registered traders (which HMRC referred to as “the network”), the sole purpose of which was to generate artificial VAT repayments. Essentially, the allegations were that supposed supplies of goods and services invoiced between the various entities were entirely fictitious; that Mr Beckford had created VAT invoices in the names of various traders in the network which had no relationship to any true supplies of goods or services by any of them; and that he had then sought to claim the input VAT shown on those invoices in other traders within the network, giving rise to repayments (the associated output VAT often not being declared, either in full or at all, by the trader in whose name the invoice had been issued). HMRC therefore denied the relevant input VAT to many of the members of the network, de-registered most for VAT purposes and imposed penalties under section 69C Value Added Tax Act 1994 (“VATA”).

Five traders (the three involved in this hearing and also two others called Ashley Marketing Services Limited (“Ashley”) and Spic ‘n’ Span Cleaning Services Limited (“Spic n Span”), both of which are referred to below) appealed to the Tribunal against various of HMRC’s decisions affecting them.

The appeals had originally been listed for hearing in December 2022 but had to be adjourned when it became apparent that Mr Beckford was not the authorised representative of the other two traders involved, and it was not clear that valid notification of the hearing had been issued to those two traders. Subsequently, their appeals were struck out for failing to engage with the Tribunal and comply with Tribunal directions. Accordingly, by the time of this hearing only three appeals remained before the Tribunal. Nonetheless, the evidence in relation to Ashley and Spic n Span remained relevant in consideration of the remaining appeals.

The remaining appeals relate to the following matters:

The hearing (which was conducted entirely remotely, as agreed by both sides) was beset with some technical difficulties which reduced the amount of hearing time actually available. In addition, Mr Foulkes’ careful and extensive cross examination of Mr Beckford took much longer than expected. The initial six day listing was eventually extended to a full nine days, but by the end of that time Mr Beckford’s cross examination was only just finished. We therefore directed (with the agreement of the parties) that closing submissions would be dealt with in writing rather than orally. We subsequently received such submissions from Mr Foulkes (123 pages) and Mr Beckford (37 pages, including 27 pages which were simply a reprint of his previous written opening submissions).

Included in the documents we received were witness statements from:

Officer Hayward had not been involved in the original investigations into the Appellants or the decisions under appeal. That role had been performed by officer Robert Phillips, who had since retired from HMRC and was no longer available to give evidence even though he had prepared extensive witness statements, each of which was reviewed and adopted by officer Hayward.

We heard oral evidence from HMRC officers Laurie Reid and Gerald Hayward, and from Mr Beckford.

We found officer Reid to be a truthful witness, though of course his evidence (now that Ashley’s appeal had been struck out) was chiefly relevant to an assessment of the activities of Ashley seen in the context of what HMRC alleged to be the overall scheme to defraud HMRC, the specific disallowance of Ashley’s input tax claims no longer being under direct consideration.

We found officer Hayward to be a truthful witness, though of course much of his evidence was concerned with analysis of documentation as he had not been personally present at any of the meetings with Mr Beckford.

We were less satisfied with the evidence of Mr Beckford. We considered his evidence to be a mixture of bluster, evasion, delusion and total fabrication. His explanations of many of the inconsistencies appearing on the face of the documents were either entirely absent, so vague as to amount to no explanation at all, or were unsupported by credible evidence and/or totally incredible.

Mr Beckford did not take issue at any stage with the legal analysis advanced by Mr Foulkes. His dispute was as to whether HMRC had established the relevant facts to support their case. Mr Foulkes helpfully set out his legal submissions in full in his closing submissions starting at paragraph 19, and since we agree with them, for the sake of simplicity they are set out in full in the Appendix to this decision.

We find the following facts.

Mr Beckford is an accountant in Bristol. He is not a current member of any of the professional bodies, but claims to have qualified as both ACCA and FCCA, and therefore to be expert in matters of accountancy. He has been involved since at least 2012 in either the operation or administration of a number of trading entities, or as an advisor and/or agent (either formal or informal) for them in their VAT (and sometimes other) dealings with HMRC.

The entities involved in the current appeals are:

Put succinctly, HMRC allege that these entities have formed a largely closed “network” of supposed traders whose VAT affairs have been artificially managed by Mr Beckford. VAT returns have been delivered for the various entities which, in aggregate, have resulted in entirely unjustified net repayments being claimed by the network as a whole, as a result of supposed taxable supplies between them. Upon closer examination of the returns, it is said that VAT summaries have been supplied which are entirely fabricated and which do not “match up”, in that output tax supposedly charged by one entity to another often does not equate to the input tax claimed by the other entity. To support these VAT summaries, it is said that invoices which do not reflect any true underlying supplies have been fabricated. In short, Mr Beckford has been manipulating the VAT system to claim entirely unjustified repayments of VAT from HMRC.

HMRC’s first relevant “in person” encounter with Mr Beckford was following the submission of APAS’s second VAT return, for period 07/13, which claimed a repayment of £1,196.45. The return was selected for verification and when HMRC visited (which took place on 4 November 2013 at the Pricerite shop), they were told that the premises had been broken into since HMRC had arranged the visit, and laptops containing all the business records had been stolen, along with the flash drives containing backups. They were also told that the figures in the VAT return were from Mr Beckford’s two “other businesses”, described as “Antbec Electrical Services” and “Antbec Accountancy Services” (it was also stated that the Pricerite shop had only started trading in August 2013). HMRC were not satisfied with the evidence that was produced to support the input tax claimed and disallowed it, in the amount of £2,410.45, resulting in a VAT liability of £1,214.

APAS’s return for period 07/14, claiming a repayment of £736.54, was also selected for verification. A VAT summary was provided but it appears HMRC did not check it and simply released the repayment.

APAS’s returns for periods 04/16 and 07/16 were also selected for verification, containing repayment claims of £523.98 and £21.56 respectively. Initially Mr Beckford did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claims and the input tax in both returns was disallowed. However, VAT summaries were eventually supplied and HMRC then released both repayments, despite noticing various apparent discrepancies.

The next contact was by officer Phillips, who made a visit to 24 Lower Ashley Road, Bristol, on 13 November 2018 to inspect the records of Pricerite (in order to check its returns for periods 03/18, 06/18 and 09/18) and Antbec Services Limited (to check periods 12/17, 03/18, 06/18 and 09/18). Officer Phillips became aware of APAS at that meeting. In checking the records supplied for Pricerite and Antbec, he became satisfied that they were contrived; the purchase and sales invoices used the same templates, there were a number of discrepancies in dates, reference numbers and addresses and Mr Beckford took a long time to provide even simple answers to questions.

He therefore took away the available VAT summaries, purchase and sales invoices for Pricerite for the four VAT periods to analyse them more closely. As a result of that process, he became aware of what he regarded as a “network” of businesses whose VAT affairs were effectively under Mr Beckford’s control and who, according to the documents supplied, were all trading with each other but where the net result of the supposed transactions between them was an overall excess of input tax claimed over output tax declared by them on the dealings between them. He reached the provisional view that the records provided could not be relied upon as reflecting, to any material extent, any real underlying transactions. These concerns were put to Mr Beckford in a meeting at HMRC’s offices on 26 April 2019, and nothing in that meeting affected Mr Phillips’ previous provisional view.

Mr Phillips wrote to Mr Beckford on 15 May 2019 setting out his “main concerns”. This was a long and complicated letter, but among the points he mentioned were: the vagueness and changeability of the supplies supposedly made by the various entities, the lack of credibility of the supposed supplies (for example the fact that Pricerite had supposedly made supplies totalling £90,000 in value to the other small entities in the network since it had ceased trading as a shop, over one third of which was supposedly for the onward sale of groceries bought through supermarkets); the obvious errors and inconsistencies in the documentation supplied to evidence the supposed supplies and the lack of any evidence of payment for them; the lack of correlation between the inputs and outputs reported in the documents in respect of the entities that were supposedly trading with each other; the lack of any material supplies to entities outside the network; the lack of any credible explanation for how the entities could all have consistently traded at a loss in generating the overall repayment claim; the fact that all of the VAT affairs of all the companies were effectively controlled by Mr Beckford; and the overall lack of credibility of many of the supplies supposedly made to small entities.

In the absence of any substantive response to Mr Phillips’ letter, on 1 July 2019 he issued the following decision letters relevant to these appeals:

In each case, the amounts of input VAT denied were those which were shown on the trader’s VAT summaries (provided by Mr Beckford) as being attributable to supplies received from the other traders listed at [18] above.

Other similar letters were sent over the next few months to all the other traders listed at [18] above with a current VAT registration, except that Bravo Car Rental and Nadine’s were not deregistered as they were understood to be carrying on restaurant trades which might have been above the registration threshold, and Aiden Trading was only dealt with at a later stage of the investigation.

The only other decision under appeal in these proceedings is a decision issued on 31 January 2020 to APAS, under which an amended penalty was imposed on Mr Beckford under section 69C VATA 94 in the sum of £6,831, spread across the accounting periods from 01/18 to 04/19, in respect of the input tax disallowed to APAS by HMRC in respect of those periods. During the course of the proceedings, HMRC indicated that two errors had been made in the calculation of this penalty, in each case by reference to the accounting period in which a part of the relevant input tax had been disallowed. In consequence of these errors, HMRC had indicated that they only wished to defend the penalties in the slightly reduced aggregate amount of £6,722. Mr Beckford takes no issue with the calculation of the penalties, only his liability for them, on the basis of his argument that all the relevant input tax was properly claimable.

There were a number of factors which HMRC relied on in support of their assertion that there was an overall scheme to defraud the Revenue to which the Appellants’ transactions (if any transactions truly took place) were connected.

HMRC’s “key” method of analysis was to consider the relative claims made by the various entities involved in respect of the supposed supplies between them. All the entities were using invoice accounting, so there ought to have been matching between output tax declared by one entity and input tax claimed by another on supposed supplies between them. Of course, the accounting periods of the various entities were not all the same and therefore it would not be possible to match exactly on a “period by period” basis; and in any event some degree of error or slippage might be expected in the normal course of events without there being any fraudulent intent. However, HMRC’s basic proposition was that by taking a broad view of a longer period as a whole, any such matters ought to be largely accommodated, allowing a clearer overall picture to emerge, by way of supplement to the “period by period” analysis. In addition, by reference to the VAT summaries actually provided by Mr Beckford for some of the entities (which broke their input and output figures down on a month by month basis), it was possible to obtain a clearer picture of the position in each period. This process could not be completed comprehensively because of the failure of some of the entities to deliver VAT summaries for some periods, however HMRC considered that the picture which emerged, on the basis of the summaries which had been supplied, was compelling in its own right.

First, it is necessary to consider HMRC’s justification for regarding the various entities as participating in a single fraudulent scheme. We find that Mr Beckford either submitted or prepared the VAT returns of all the traders, and various conversations with some of the other traders confirmed this to be the case. We find that he also prepared and submitted the VAT summaries for all of the traders. Those traders often did not know what was being entered into their VAT returns or the VAT summaries which Mr Beckford supplied to HMRC, and expressed ignorance of the other traders they were supposedly dealing with when HMRC told them about them. The value of the supplies made by the various entities to each other rather than to unconnected customers, viewed both independently and in proportion to their respective overall supplies, also pointed to a clear link between them.

By way of illustration of the latter point, APAS reported total taxable supplies (excluding VAT) of £27,615 in period 01/18. All of those supplies were made to the entities listed at [18] above, and £21,240 of that figure was made up of two supplies to Ashley on 1 and 30 November 2017. In period 04/18, APAS reported taxable supplies of £13,625, of which all but £600 was to entities listed at [18] above. In period 07/18, the equivalent figures were £11,626 and £300. In period 10/18 they were £22,210 and £1,600 and in period 01/19 they were £19,000 and £600.

For Antbec over the periods 12/17 to 12/18, reported supplies were £86,670 (excluding VAT), all of which were made to other entities listed at [18] above.

Ashley reported total taxable supplies over periods 11/17 to 11/18 of £28,820 (which did not include any amount in respect of its supply of the trucks referred to below, presumably on the basis that such supply would have been zero rated). In the first four of those periods up to 08/18, its total reported supplies were £13,700 (excluding VAT), all of which were to other entities listed at [18] above, apart from £1,500 to “Eunick Care” (which turned out to be a company in which both Mr Beckford and Mr Habane were directors at the time) and £3,000 to an unknown trader described as “first call taxi, s” in the VAT summaries. By contrast, in period 11/18 Ashley suddenly started reporting significant supplies to other apparently unconnected traders – £10,331.11 out of the total reported supplies of £15,120. This sudden and complete change in the nature of Ashley’s business does not appear credible.

It is true that Nadine’s reported significant supplies to outside customers, but nonetheless she also reported invoiced supplies to other entities listed at [18] above of £7,120 (excluding VAT) during the period 5 September 2018 to 24 October 2018 alone (compared with her reported supplies through the till of £13,318 (excluding VAT) for the entire 11/18 accounting period).

It is also true that Spic n Span appears to have an unconnected customer called Friday Island (about which little is known). However, apart from that customer, over the period from 1 January 2018 to 28 February 2019, all Spic n Span’s reported supplies were to other traders listed at [18] above.

HMRC then provided an analysis which compared the input tax claimed by the Appellants and other entities listed at [18] above in respect of each supplier on that list with the output tax declared by that supplier in respect of supplies to each of those entities. This analysis showed that, on the basis of the information supplied by Mr Beckford, the claimed input tax exceeded the output tax declared as follows:

Looking at the overall picture, the table above shows a total discrepancy of over £62,500. It tied in with separate analysis with which we were presented showing that, in relation to all of the traders over periods approximately corresponding to the same relevant timeframe, input tax claimed exceeded output tax declared by similarly significant sums (albeit that some relatively small ‘non-network’ inputs and outputs may have been included within that analysis). Such an excess existed for every trader apart from Spic n Span (where there was an overall net liability of just £968 declared over the relevant period).

This highlighted the fact that when taken over an extended period, the aggregate VAT returns of the various traders lacked credibility. None of the traders was claiming to make zero rated supplies or to have any special explanation for the permanent VAT reclaim, other than continuing ongoing losses. Mr Beckford’s explanation referred to “time frames”, which HMRC took to be claiming that the position would reverse if the full picture were taken into account, including all the other accounting periods of all the traders in question. However, no information about those other accounting periods was provided by him, thus rendering it impossible to check that claim.

We are satisfied on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the above facts in particular that it was appropriate for HMRC to consider the various traders listed at [18] as making up a largely closed network which amounted to an overall scheme to defraud the Revenue, and for them to consider that all input tax being claimed on supplies between those traders to be connected to that overall fraudulent scheme. We refer to these traders together as “the group”.

That then leads on to a consideration of some aspects of the fraud and the question of whether Pricerite, Easy Work and APAS (the Appellants in these appeals) were either knowingly involved in it or ought to have known of the connection of their transactions with it.

One specific transaction, involving an unconnected third party, stood out and deserves special mention. This was a transaction which took place in August 2018. Mr Beckford’s evidence was that Mr Habane of Ashley engaged his help to source some trucks for which Mr Habane had found buyers. By researching on the internet, Mr Beckford had found two trucks which were being sold by a company called Zoemick Commercials Limited in Durham which seemed to suit Mr Habane’s requirements. They had travelled together to view the trucks and reach terms with the sellers. The intention was that Mr Beckford would acquire the trucks through Antbec and sell them on to Ashley, for onward sale to Ashley’s customer (whose identity was not known to Mr Beckford).

Zoemick issued a proforma invoice to Antbec dated 21 August 2018 which listed the two trucks and gave a price of £13,000 plus VAT for each of them – so a total of £31,200. They required payment of a deposit and the trucks would then only be released once they had been paid in full. Mr Beckford was unable to explain how it was that Zoemick had later sent to him a different invoice (not a proforma) in respect of the two trucks, dated 18 August 2018, with a price of £13,000 each but with no VAT charged as they were to be exported to a consignee in “Somaliland”.

Mr Beckford left it to Mr Habane to arrange the details with Zoemick, and Mr Habane indeed paid a large part of the purchase price directly to them (we infer this must be correct as the vehicles would not otherwise have been released). It appears that Mr Habane planned to export the trucks – which eventually happened as it was arranged by Zoemick on his instructions. However, in the meantime, Antbec issued invoices addressed to Ashley in respect of the vehicles. First, two invoices were issued, erroneously dated 3 August 2018, each for £12,000 plus £2,400 of VAT, for “interim charges” in relation to the two vehicles. Then two further invoices were issued, dated 23 August 2018, each for £14,000 plus VAT of £2,800, for “final charges inc insurance, driver cost, fuel and parking” for each vehicle. So the sale price from Zoemick was £13,000 per vehicle with no VAT charged and Antbec invoiced Ashley £26,000 plus VAT in respect of each vehicle (which included an amount Mr Beckford included for the expected costs of taxing the vehicles and having them driven to Bristol from Durham). In its VAT summaries, Antbec showed both £10,400 of output VAT invoiced to Ashley and £5,200 of supposed input VAT from Zoemick, but the £5,200 difference was more than cancelled out by supposed purchases from other entities within the network which gave rise to nearly £7,000 of input VAT for Antbec. Ashley claimed the £10,400 of input VAT in its own VAT summary, resulting in an overall repayment claim of £13,979 in its return for period 08/18. In that period, apart from £84.66 of input VAT claimed on minor expenses, the whole of Ashley’s input VAT of £15,219 and the whole of its output VAT were said to have arisen from supplies supposedly made entirely between Ashley and the other entities listed at [18] above. No credible evidence of payment for any of these supposed supplies was provided.

There were a number of inconsistencies in the account of this transaction given by Mr Beckford, but the trucks were clearly bought and paid for by somebody and HMRC export declaration records show them as having been exported in January 2019 from Felixstowe. HMRC spoke to Zoemick and they confirmed they had indeed sold the vehicles for export (hence charging no VAT) and had themselves arranged for the vehicles to be taken to Felixstowe and shipped to Somalia. We find that Mr Beckford was well aware that the trucks were to be exported and that by invoicing Ashley from Antbec he was creating the appearance of a large amount of input tax in Ashley (leading to a significant repayment claim by it since it declared no output tax on any onward supply of the vehicles as they were being exported), whilst eliminating the output tax liability in Antbec by supposed purchases by it from other entities listed at [18] above.

Mr Beckford was extremely vague about the nature of many of the supplies which had supposedly been made between the various entities. In relation to supplies by APAS and Easy Work, the main supplies he referred to were of accountancy/bookkeeping and advisory services (particularly, in the later periods, in respect of the various HMRC enquiries). But he also claimed that APAS had carried out a great deal of “research” for the other traders, Ashley in particular. This was said to involve finding business opportunities and evaluating them, in areas such as solar panels. He also said that he had provided some marketing data to Ashley as part of a supposed branching out of Pricerite into the provision of customer mailing lists from a central supplier of such data, but there was no evidence of any such data having been either obtained or sold on, and Mr Beckford’s evidence as to the activities which had supposedly been conducted in this area was extremely vague and completely implausible. Antbec was said to be in the business of renting out electrical and other goods, but there was no evidence of acquisition of such goods or of the invoicing or collection of payments for them from any customers outside the network of traders referred to at [18] above.

Also, the values of the supplies supposedly made were sometimes adjusted after the event by the issue of credit notes. So, for example, the VAT summaries for both APAS and Ashley showed APAS as having made a supply to Ashley on 30 November 2017 to the value of £8,000 plus VAT (though no detail of the nature of the supply was given). Then, in APAS’s VAT summary for its period 01/19, a credit note dated 10 November 2018 for the full amount addressed to Ashley was entered, with the note “Cn ashley marketing-nov17” against it. A copy of the credit note was also included in the bundle. The credit note bore the date “14/10/2019” (the date it was actually sent to HMRC), carried the identifying number 10000, recorded the description of services to which it related as “Research and Development”, and included the new VAT number of APAS which had only been issued to it in July 2019 after it had applied to be re-registered for VAT following its deregistration at the start of that month. It also included an address for APAS from which Mr Beckford said it had never traded, and gave a reason for its issue: “re discount due to services not meeting buyers specification”.

Mr Beckford said the current date and updated VAT number must have been inserted by his accounting software when the credit note was reprinted on the day he sent it to HMRC. This was, he said one of the problems he had found with the software in question. The address was an error he could not explain, beyond suggesting that the system might also have done this (without explaining how the system would have recorded an address at which he said APAS had never traded). His explanation for the issue of the credit note was unclear, but he seemed to be suggesting that it was prompted by HMRC telling Mr Habane that APAS’s fees were too high, as a result of which he agreed with Mr Habane to reduce them, alternatively he mentioned it might have been because of some set-off arrangement. Nor could he explain what services APAS had originally provided with any clarity, speculating that it might have been accounting services and/or research into possible new products for Ashley.

On the same date as he supplied this credit note to HMRC, Mr Beckford supplied another one to them. This was a confusing document. It bore the date 9 December 2018 (therefore not apparently suffering from the “system induced” error of inserting a current date as the date of issue, Mr Beckford suggesting that this may have been because this had been a stored copy of the originally issued credit note, rather than a re-printed copy) and the serial number 10002. It was also addressed to Ashley and also showed APAS’s new VAT number (the one which was only issued to it in July 2019, which negates any suggestion that this could have been a stored copy of a document which had truly been issued on 9 December 2018). It contained three lines of entries. The first referred to “Accounting Fees” of £5,000 plus £1,000 VAT, which were shown to total up to £5,000 (not £6,000). The second line referred to “Business Advisory Services” of £3,000 plus £600 VAT, which were shown to total up to £3,000 (not £3,600). The third line referred to “discount” and gave a figure of -£5,630 as the unit price, with zero VAT, totalling -£5,630. Below these three entries, a “subtotal” of £2,370 was given, above a VAT figure of £1,600, with a “Total” at the bottom of £3,970. Mr Beckford’s explanation of this credit note was again vague. He said that the intention was to issue a credit note for the whole £8,000 referred to in the first two lines, but the “system” must have changed the figures to reflect the fact that a part payment had been received on the original invoice(s).

When this second credit note is matched to the VAT summary that had been provided for APAS, it is shown as an entirely separate entry, dated 9 December 2018, entitled “Cn-ashley marketing”, with a negative sales figure of -£5,630 net, and an associated negative VAT amount of -£1,126 – which does not tally with either the credit note produced, or Mr Beckford’s explanation of it. No VAT summary has ever been supplied for Ashley covering any period after November 2018, so it was not possible to check how this credit note was dealt with in Ashley’s VAT return for the relevant period. The effect of the issue of the two credit notes on APAS’s VAT return for period 01/19 was however clear enough – it reduced what would otherwise have been a VAT liability of £2,746 for the period to a liability of £20.

Having considered the documents and heard Mr Beckford’s evidence, we conclude that HMRC’s assertion is correct: the two credit notes were simply fabricated after the event by Mr Beckford in an attempt to provide documentary support for the respective entries included in APAS’s VAT summary for December 2018 and they do not reflect any true adjustment in value to any underlying supply made by APAS.

Mr Beckford argued that all the supplies reflected in the VAT returns and the VAT summaries provided had taken place. HMRC’s suspicions about the reality of many of the underlying transactions were misplaced, and any mismatch between the input tax claimed by one trader and the output tax reported by another was attributable either to a simple timing difference in their respective VAT accounting or to human error. HMRC had clearly made their minds up at an early stage that they would “get” him and from that point had compiled and manipulated the evidence to support the narrative they were promoting. As to the values placed on the supplies, it was up to individual traders to negotiate and agree them and it was not HMRC’s place to question them. He accepted that his record keeping had not been up to the standard HMRC required, but that did not mean that the supplies had not taken place.

By reference to the whole of the evidence before us (of which the above represents just some obvious highlights), we are satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there was a fraudulent scheme to defraud the VAT system which involved the traders listed at [18] above and that Mr Beckford was not just aware of that scheme but was its architect and administrator. The closed nature of the network was clear from an examination of the volume of supplies supposedly made by each member to the others, there being almost no other customers (apart from the small restaurant business of Nadine’s and the single external customer of Spic n Span). Mr Beckford’s central role in administering the network was perfectly clear. Most of the supposed supplies were highly implausible in the context of the businesses concerned, and the evidence to demonstrate the supplies that had been made was almost non-existent. We found Mr Beckford a wholly unconvincing witness and do not accept the various explanations which he advanced whilst giving his oral testimony.

Addressing the position of APAS specifically, whilst Mr Beckford undoubtedly acted on behalf of the other traders and carried out certain basic administrative and accounting tasks in their names, we consider that most of his activity in doing so was to further the objectives of the overall fraudulent scheme; to the extent he was (as he claims) actually providing accounting or other services, those services were secondary to his administration of the fraud. Nonetheless, some small value could potentially be attributed to those supplies. Mr Beckford argues that the value placed by the parties on those supplies must be accepted by HMRC. As a general proposition, we accept that parties who bargain at arms’ length are free to agree whatever value they wish on goods or services supplied to one another, however there are limits to that proposition when the supposed values are clearly fabricated, based on largely fictitious supplies, in order to facilitate a fraud. Whilst accepting therefore that some taxable supplies may have been made by APAS to the other traders in the network, we consider that any such supplies will have been connected to the overall fraud, and therefore the recovery of input VAT on them by the other traders would be properly denied under the Kittel principle.

As APAS was simply a trading style of Mr Beckford, he was a partner in Pricerite and the sole director of Easy Work, his knowledge and state of mind are imputed to all three Appellants. It follows we are satisfied on a balance of probabilities that:

It follows that the requirements for the denial of all input tax purportedly charged by any trader within the group to the Appellants are satisfied, as are the requirements for de-registration of the Appellants for VAT purposes.

For the penalties imposed on Mr Beckford to be maintained, HMRC must clearly satisfy all the requirements of section 69C VATA. We note that Mr Beckford did contest the penalties on the basis of any technical legal argument, he simply asserted they were not due because all of the claimed supplies in question had taken place and the values ascribed to them had been correct and could not be questioned by HMRC.

The general scheme of section 69C is to allow HMRC to impose a penalty on a taxpayer in respect of the VAT advantage he gains from making or receiving a supply where the transaction in question is connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT by another person, where the taxpayer knew (or should have known) of that connection and HMRC have issued a decision to the taxpayer denying him the expected advantage based on that knowledge and the principles set out in Kittel (where the advantage is credit for input tax) or Mecsek (where the advantage is zero rating of an outward supply, a circumstance which does not apply in this case).

Turning to the specifics of section 69C, HMRC clearly issued a “denial decision” which included a denial of APAS’s input tax on Kittel grounds (see subsection (4)). Thus in respect of each amount of input tax claimed by APAS, if (i) APAS entered into a “transaction involving the making of a supply to” it (see subsection (1)(a)), (ii) the “transaction” in question was connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT by another person (see subsection (2)), and (iii) APAS knew or should have known of that connection (see subsection (3)), then a penalty under section 69C is justified.

Liability under section 69C therefore depends on APAS having “entered into a transaction involving the making of a supply to” it.

This would present a problem for HMRC if the true situation was that there had never been any “transaction involving the making of a supply” between the various other network traders and APAS. We consider that most if not all of the various VAT invoices addressed by the other traders to APAS were entirely fictitious, in that the purported underlying supplies to which they referred did not take place. That does not, however, mean that APAS never entered into any “transaction” which involved the making of a supply to it by each of the other network traders. We consider that there was such a “supply”, in each case the nature of that supply being the provision of a false VAT invoice upon which it was intended that APAS would reclaim the input VAT; and ample consideration was given for that supply in the form of APAS arranging for other similarly fictitious VAT invoices to be provided to each of the other network traders to form the basis of their respective fraudulent claims for input VAT. We have also found that all of the various fraudulent input tax claims were part of an overall fraudulent scheme organised and administered by Mr Beckford/APAS, who therefore had full knowledge of the connection between the disallowed input tax of APAS and the overall fraud.

It follows that we consider the requirements of section 69C to be satisfied and therefore uphold the penalty imposed on APAS in the reduced amount of £6,722 argued for by HMRC.

There was an overall scheme to defraud the revenue which involved all the traders listed at [18] above.

Mr Beckford was the architect and administrator of that scheme.

All three Appellants knew of the fraudulent scheme.

The vast majority of the purported taxable supplies within the group of traders did not take place at all, as all three Appellants well knew. To that extent, in seeking to recover input tax which they knew was not properly recoverable by them, they were seeking fraudulently to exercise a right to deduct and HMRC were entitled to deny that input tax on the basis of Fini.

To the extent that the Appellants were the recipients of any actual taxable supplies from other traders in the group, they were well aware that such supplies were an integral part of (and therefore connected to) the overall fraud, accordingly HMRC were entitled to deny the related input tax on the basis of Kittel.

As all three Appellants were well aware that their VAT registrations were being used fraudulently in furtherance of the overall fraudulent scheme, HMRC were entitled to deregister them for VAT purposes on the basis of Ablessio, as explained in Impact Contracting Solutions.

The requirements for the valid imposition of a penalty under section 69C VATA on Mr Beckford (trading as APAS) were satisfied, but in the reduced amount of £6,722.

Accordingly, the appeal of Mr Beckford is ALLOWED IN PART, to the extent of reducing the penalty under section 69C VATA 1994 imposed on him from £6,831 to £6,722. The penalty is accordingly confirmed in that reduced amount.

Apart from that, the appeals are DISMISSED.

This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice.