Tax

Y4 Express Ltd v Revenue & Customs (Value Added Tax - Input tax)

[2020] UKFTT TC TC07777First-tier Tribunal (Tax)2020

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 - Input tax - Taxpayer claimed refund of input VAT on the basis that taxable supplies were made to the taxpayer - Whether an �economic activity� was carried out - Taxpayer not entitled to refund of input VAT - appeal dismissed - Penalties for inaccurate returns - appeal dismissed - penalties reduced to careless inaccuracies.

Sitting in public at Taylor House, Roseberry Avenue, London on 13, 14, 15 and 16 January 2020.

Mr Eyles-Rushe, litigator of HM Revenue and Customs� Solicitor�s Office for the Respondents.

This is an appeal against a decision of HMRC of 27 April 2018 that Y4 Express Limited (�Y4�) is not eligible for a refund of VAT in respect of the VAT periods from 10/13 to 02/17. It relates also to the issue of a VAT assessment for �119 for the VAT period 05/16. �

The tax in dispute totals �463,114 and relates to invoices from Pat Ning Man, Colemead Limited and Yodel Delivery Network Limited (�Yodel�). Y4 does not now dispute the denial of input tax in respect of Staycourt Ltd which amounts to �1228.

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

Ferguson & Anor v Revenue and Customs (STAMP DUTY LAND TAX - residential property - whether paddock was part of garden or grounds of dwelling - paddock was part of grounds)

[2026] UKFTT TC 238

MWL International Ltd & Anor v Revenue and Customs (NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS - agreement with inspector of taxes that certain cars would be "pooled cars" for NICs purposes if various conditions satisfied - HMRC subsequently sought to collect NICs retrospectively - whether HMRC estopped from doing so - whether the FTT had jurisdiction to decide whether Appellants had legitimate expectation that decisions would not be retrospective)

[2026] UKUT TCC 62

BGC Services Holdings LLP v Revenue and Customs (Determinations under Reg 80 of the PAYE Regs - whether it appeared to HMRC that there may be tax payable)

[2026] UKFTT TC 558

Best Cosmetics Ltd v Revenue and Customs (IMPORT VAT - Postponed VAT Accounting - importer not VAT registered - post-clearance demand notices issued for unpaid VAT - no evidence that postponed VAT was accounted for)

[2026] UKFTT TC 236

Ivey v Revenue and Customs (Strike Out - Jurisdiction)

[2026] UKFTT TC 233

Revenue and Customs v Electric Mobility Euro Ltd & Anor (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 37

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