4Site Services London Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 9 December 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1504 (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
4Site appealed HMRC's denial of input VAT under Kittel and an associated s69 VATA penalty; the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeals. The Tribunal held HMRC's 2 Sept 2021 Kittel denial was a separate alternate assessment for 06/20 (not merely an amendment) and had jurisdiction to decide it. On the facts the Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that CMUS and GCorp had fraudulently evaded VAT, that 4Site's purchases were connected to that evasion, and that 4Site should have known (including by turning a blind eye); the assessed input tax of £268,032 and the penalty of £80,409.60 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: medium
The decision indicates that an assessment issued on a different legal basis can constitute a separate alternate assessment for the same accounting period and amount, so withdrawal of an earlier assessment does not automatically invalidate a later Kittel-based assessment; and that recurrent documentary anomalies, limited or absent due diligence, narrow supplier networks and conduct consistent with turning a blind eye can support a finding that a purchaser "should have known" of a supplier's fraudulent VAT evasion.
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 observed that lack of sector warnings from HMRC or prior notifications is of limited weight where objective documentary indicators of fraud exist, and that the presence of a qualified in-house accountant who nonetheless accepted persistently inadequate supplier invoices without reconciliation is a relevant factor pointing toward constructive knowledge.