Tags

, , , ,

Decision of the Upper Tribunal in Powa (Jersey) Limited, an MTIC case in which the trader, on appeal, raised questions as to the proper translation of the ECJ decisions in Kittel and the impact there of on determination of “knew or ought to have known” in the context of MTIC fraud and the denial of claims for input tax by HMRC.

This decision provides a comprehensive rehearsal of the relevant law in relation to MTIC generally. the UTR acknowledged the discrepancies between translations of key phrases in the leading jurisprudence of the ECJ in relation to cases involving tax fraud but determined that, so far as MTIC is concerned and specifically the actions of HMRC, it is of little relevance.

The principles laid down by the Court of Appeal in Mobilx are restated.

A copy of the full decision is available here: Powa (Jersey) Ltd v HMRC [2012] UKUT 50 (TCC) (8 February 2012).