PAP Solutions Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 21 May 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 761 (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
PAP Solutions Ltd (controlled by Dr Apostolos Papadopoulos) exported smoking-paraphernalia to two Bulgarian companies and zero-rated 14 intra‑EU supplies; HMRC denied zero‑rating, imposed a s69C penalty, and issued a s69D personal liability notice to Dr Papadopoulos. The tribunal found the Bulgarian customers had carried out fraudulent VAT evasion, held that PAP knew or alternatively should have known the supplies were connected to the fraud, and that PAP had not taken every reasonable step to prevent participation. As a result, HMRC’s refusal to zero‑rate, the s69C penalty (£29,574.90) and the personal liability notice were upheld.
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 applied the balance‑of‑probabilities standard to conclude that where objective evidence shows multiple indicia (for example, customers with identical formation and VAT dates, failing to declare sales, use of a shared intermediary, large and atypical cash sterling payments, and abnormal payment/invoice patterns), a supplier can be found to have known or to have been on inquiry that transactions were connected to fraudulent VAT evasion; HMRC bears the burden to prove the tax loss and the supplier’s actual or constructive knowledge.
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 commented that "supply chain" for connection to fraud can encompass both a supplier’s suppliers and its customers, and that credibility and documentary consistency are important; merely collecting but not examining customer documents may be inadequate as due diligence.