Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
VAT � MTIC � whether transactions connected to fraudulent tax loss � yes - whether Appellant knew or ought to have known � yes
Sitting in public in London on 18-22, 25-29 January, 1 & 2 February and 7-9 June 2010 and� 8 & 9 March 2011
Mr P Green, Mr J Rivett and Ms A Cohen, Counsel,� instructed by Maitland Walker, for the Appellant
Mr Collins, Ms R Marcus and Mr J Sharma, Counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs for the Respondents
This appeal concerns input tax totalling �303,646.35 incurred by Earthshine Ltd (�Earthshine�) on 7 deals which took place in July, October and November 2006.� HMRC issued a decision letter on 15 February 2008 denying Earthshine the right to recover this input tax on the grounds HMRC considered Earthshine knew or should have known that the transactions were connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.