Tax

Infinity Holdings Ltd (in administration) v Revenue & Customs

[2014] UKFTT TC TC03546First-tier Tribunal (Tax)2014

Get the AI brief for this case

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.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

VALUE ADDED TAX � claim for bad debt relief � s36 VATA 1994 and Regs 165A and 166 VAT Regulations 1995 � whether claim made within time specified � no � appeal dismissed

Lucy Wilson Barnes, Counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents

Infinity contends that the earlier letters were sent on the dates they bore and it is possible that they were received by HMRC but not allocated to the relevant file or alternatively not delivered by Royal Mail although posted.� In any event, Infinity contends that posting of the claim is sufficient to constitute the making of the claim.

The appeal therefore concerns whether a claim for bad debt relief was made before June 2011.� It is in essence a preliminary point because if the appeal succeeds then the claim would need to be considered on its merits, which we understand has not yet happened.

We had a witness statement from Mr Simon Thakor (�Mr Thakor�) the Chief Executive of Infinity.� We heard oral evidence from Mr Thakor and he was cross-examined. We found that much of Mr Thakor�s evidence was vague and lacked credibility and reliability in a number of respects and therefore have approached it with caution, being reluctant to accept it in a number of instances without corroboration.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Tax cases

Wood & Anor v Revenue and Customs (Stamp Duty Land Tax - rate of SDLT applicable - whether Table A or Table B - whether the house and land included land that was not residential property - whether all of land was, or formed part of, grounds of house - Finance Act 2003, ss 55, 116)

[2026] UKFTT TC 265

New Claire Wine Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Discovery assessments - extended time limit assessments - penalty for inaccuracy in a return - deliberate inaccuracy - whether deliberate inaccuracy necessarily involves dishonesty - whether HMRC required to specifically plead and prove dishonesty - whether the FTT erred in failing to explain how the appellant's conduct might not involve dishonesty)

[2026] UKUT TCC 116

Trees v Revenue and Customs (VAT - penalties - director's liability notice (DLN) - section 60 and 61 VATA 1994 - Kittel appeal in 2020 - HMRC expressly not pleading dishonesty)

[2026] UKUT TCC 92

RSK Cars Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - whether trader was entitled to use the VAT margin scheme for second-hand vehicles)

[2026] UKFTT TC 122

Alesen Direct Solutions Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Company undertaking construction work; VAT assessment; hardship application; company made advances to related entities/persons; hardship denied)

[2026] UKFTT TC 398

Rodrigues v Revenue and Customs

[2026] UKUT TCC 75

Common Room

Discussion

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.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.

Tax