Coonley Trading Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 24 May 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 452 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This appeal concerned HMRC’s disallowance of input VAT claimed by Coonley Trading Ltd for periods 10/17–04/19, related penalties, and a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) for the company’s director. The Tribunal found the company had not provided the required documentary evidence to support the input tax claims, upheld amended VAT assessments and penalties, and concluded the inaccuracies were deliberate and attributable to the director so the PLN was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

Where a business claims input tax, the claim must be supported by the documentary evidence required by the VAT Regulations; absence of those documents can justify disallowance of input tax. Further, where claimed purchases and sources of funding lack credible contemporaneous documentary support, the tribunal may on the balance of probabilities find the inaccuracies in VAT returns to be deliberate.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The tribunal rejected late explanations by the director (eg, restricted access to storage, lockdown effects, use of personal credit cards, franchisor emails) where they conflicted with contemporaneous correspondence and HMRC’s enquiries. The decision also records that HMRC may exercise discretion under Regulation 29 to refuse claims not supported by correct evidence while sometimes giving limited allowances for certain documents.