Mohammed Tariq v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Decision date: 22 October 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 279 (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 the appellant actually received high‑value mobile phones shown on supplier invoices and thus was entitled to reclaim the associated input VAT. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the transactions were part of a missing trader fraud, the appellant did not receive the goods, and therefore could not reclaim the input VAT; HMRC’s input‑tax assessments were upheld. The Tribunal also held that assessments purporting to charge the appellant with VAT shown on false supplier invoices were ineffective as assessments but gave rise to debts recoverable by HMRC under Schedule 11.
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
Where a taxpayer did not in fact receive goods, VAT shown on supplier invoices is not input tax attributable to that taxpayer under the relevant input‑tax provisions and cannot be reclaimed; and where an invoice is false and the supply did not occur, Schedule 11 creates a debt to the Crown recoverable as such rather than generating an assessable VAT 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 expressed the view (not forming a binding ratio) that Regulation 29(2)’s proviso permits HMRC to require or accept alternative (not necessarily documentary) evidence when suppliers appear unregistered, so HMRC’s discretion to admit alternative evidence can be exercised after the event. The Tribunal also commented that even if an earlier approach treating fraud‑tainted chains as void were disapproved, HMRC’s refusal to allow input tax was reasonable on the facts given the apparent non‑existence/unregistration of suppliers.