Gary Turner v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 6 June 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 495 (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 a £107,306.55 s.69D officers’ liability penalty imposed on Mr Gary Turner after HMRC disallowed Loy Commodities Ltd’s input VAT (periods 03/18–03/19) as connected to fraudulent VAT evasion. The FTT found, on the balance of probabilities and relying on unchallenged HMRC investigative evidence, that the purchases were traced to defaulting traders and therefore connected to fraud, and that Mr Turner knew or ought to have known of that connection and was the controlling mind of Loy. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty 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 tribunal treated unchallenged, objective investigative evidence tracing a company’s purchases to defaulting traders as sufficient to establish a fraudulent tax loss and the requisite connection for s.69C, and held that a director who is the controlling mind and who conducted the company’s transactions can be personally liable under s.69D if he knew or ought to have known the transactions were connected to VAT fraud.
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 (as identified in the notes) suggests that certain commercial features—lack of commercial/credit due diligence, trading before VIES/VAT checks, absence of price negotiation or commercial risk, and payment structures removing trader risk—point towards contrived transactions; and that a person’s good character or absence of criminal investigation does not prevent civil attribution or knowledge findings for penalty purposes. These appear as explanatory observations rather than essential holdings.