Unatrade Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 19 October 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1438 (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 Unatrade's claim to recover 90% of input VAT for periods 07/23–11/23 where HMRC refused most of the claims because valid Regulation 14 VAT invoices were not held and alternative evidence under Regulation 29(2) was insufficient. The Tribunal found that the till receipts and other documents did not evidence the VAT charged to the required degree and that HMRC properly exercised its discretion to allow only 10% of the claimed input tax (the appeal was dismissed). HMRC's extrapolation of the 07/23 findings to later periods was upheld given the same business model and pervasive evidential deficiency.
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 treated as binding for this case that alternative evidence under Regulation 29(2) must demonstrate the charge to VAT with the same level of detail required by Regulation 14; mere calculation of an assumed VAT amount from gross/till receipts is insufficient to establish entitlement to input tax. Where almost all claimed input tax for a period lacks evidence of VAT amounts, HMRC may reasonably refuse deduction and, if the taxpayer's business model remains broadly the same, extrapolate that conclusion to subsequent periods.
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 suggested—but not as a binding point—that a taxpayer's inability to compel suppliers to issue valid invoices does not excuse failing to request them, and that Regulation 29(2)'s discretion is principally to correct defective invoices by providing missing information rather than to permit deductions based on assumption from gross receipts.