Opus Labour Services Limited (in liquidation) & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 30 June 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 800 (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 whether Opus Labour Services Ltd (in liquidation) and its director Mr Giller ought to have known that payments to a sequence of payroll suppliers were connected to VAT fraud, such that input tax should be denied and personal liability imposed. The Tribunal found HMRC proved on the balance of probabilities that Opus should have known the transactions were connected to fraudulent VAT evasion because of repeated engagement with consecutively fraudulent suppliers and seriously inadequate due diligence; it rejected a finding of actual knowledge by Mr Giller. The appeals were 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
The Tribunal’s decisive ratio is that repeated engagement with consecutively fraudulent suppliers combined with a failure to carry out basic, documented commercial checks (so that claimed GPS/VIES/CIS checks lacked supporting evidence) can establish that a taxpayer ought to have known transactions were connected to VAT fraud for Kittel-style denial of input tax and imposition of personal liability.
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 noted (obiter) that a finding of actual knowledge would require evidence that a person was an active and sustained fraudster, and the court may decline to make such a finding where the evidence does not support that level of culpability. It also observed that raising unpleaded industry practice points late in proceedings may be prejudicial.