Revive Corporation Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 6 February 2024

Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 127 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

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: medium

This appeal concerned whether Revive Corporation Ltd (RCL) should have known that 20 purchases from PPSM, onward sold largely to GECX, were connected to fraudulent VAT evasion. The Tribunal, on remittal from the Upper Tribunal, found the factual connection to MTIC fraud proved, that RCL did not have actual knowledge but ought to have known of the connection given the surrounding circumstances and its limited enquiries, and dismissed RCL’s appeal, upholding HMRC’s denial of input tax of £1,012,500.90.

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: medium

The Tribunal treated the "should have known" enquiry as fact‑sensitive and lawfully considered the totality of RCL’s dealings, what RCL did or omitted to do, and what reasonable enquiries were practicable in the circumstances. HMRC bears the burden of proving that the taxpayer ought to have known of the connection to fraud; an asserted innocent explanation does not shift that burden but is assessed against all surrounding evidence and practicable enquiries.

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 judgment indicates that a long‑past or tenuous acquaintance with an intermediary, without independent verification, is insufficient reassurance; likewise, reliance on limited web material, partial credit checks, or inconsistent use of domestic VAT‑number verification may be inadequate where multiple red flags exist.