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.
VALUE ADDED TAX � MTIC fraud � whether the appellant knew or should have known of the connection between its purchases in relation to which deduction of input VAT was claimed and fraudulent evasion of VAT � held deduction of the input tax would be denied because the appellant knew of the connection or if it did not then it knew that the only reasonable explanation for the transactions in issue was that they were connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT � appeal dismissed
Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice, London on 28, 30 and 31 January 2013 and 4, 5, 6 and 7 February 2013.� After the hearing, written submissions were received by the Tribunal from the Respondents (dated 18 February 2013) and the Appellant (dated 31 March 2013).
Jenny Goldring and Howard Watkinson, Counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
The appellant, EMJ Telecommunications Limited (�EMJ�) appeals against two decisions of the respondents (�HMRC�) denying it entitlement to the benefit of the right to deduct input tax in the total sum of �1,036,297.50 claimed in relation to EMJ�s monthly VAT accounting periods 05/06 (�614,600) and 06/06 (�421,697.50).�
The first decision, communicated to EMJ by HMRC in a letter dated 7 November 2007, related to input tax, deduction of which was claimed by EMJ in relation to its monthly VAT accounting periods 05/06 and 06/06 as follows:
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.