Tax

Intekx Ltd v Revenue & Customs

[2014] UKFTT TC TC03416First-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

VAT - input tax - MTIC fraud acknowledged - whether Appellant knew or ought to have known about the fraud - yes - appeal dismissed

Robert Morris of Counsel instructed by Jeffrey Green Russell appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

Christopher Kerr and Ben Hayhurst of Counsel instructed by Howes Percival LLP appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

This is an appeal against a decision of the Commissioners contained in a letter dated 1 May 2008 denying entitlement to the right to deduct input tax in the sum of �176,487.50 relating to two deals in the Appellant�s monthly VAT accounting period 09/06.

The grounds for the decision are that the deals were connected to the fraudulent evasion of VAT and that the Appellant (�Intekx�) knew or should have known, of that connection. The deals were alleged to be part of a Missing Trader Intra Community fraud (�MTIC�).

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