One Call Consultants Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 26 January 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 156 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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 denial of OCC's input VAT of £314,401, imposition of s69C company penalties and a s69D officer penalty on Mr McGrail, and deregistration of OCC, arising from payments to a sequence of four "defaulter" payroll providers. The FTT found on the balance of probabilities that the purchases were connected to a VAT fraud orchestrated through sequential defaulting suppliers and that OCC and Mr McGrail knew (or should have known) of that connection. The tribunal dismissed the appeals, upheld the penalties and confirmed deregistration as proportionate.
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
The tribunal's dispositive reasoning is that where a taxpayer sources essentially all relevant input-taxable supplies through a sequence of defaulting suppliers, coupled with generic/identical poor contract documentation and inadequate pre‑contract due diligence (often carried out only after HMRC enquiries), that factual pattern can support a finding that the taxpayer knew or should have known the purchases were connected to VAT fraud for the purposes of the Kittel test.
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 expressed non-binding observations that very large, poorly indexed bundles impede fair access to materials (including for neurodiverse users) and that tenuous or distant associations (such as weak links to third parties who advise both compliant and non‑compliant clients) should be given little weight absent objective probative links to knowledge of fraud.