A recent First-tier Tribunal decision has given useful guidance on how Kittel assessments, denied input tax and VAT fraud penalties may be approached where a business is said to have known, or should have known, that its transactions were connected with fraud.
The case concerned a business operating in the fast-moving consumer goods sector. HMRC denied input tax of more than £1.28 million across VAT periods from March 2020 to June 2021 and issued a company penalty of more than £386,000. The appeal was allowed in part.
For businesses facing HMRC action, the case is a reminder that a VAT fraud allegation does not always depend on proving actual knowledge. HMRC may argue that the business should have known that the transactions were connected with fraud, particularly where warnings, sector risks or HMRC education have already been given.
What was the Sweetmotion v HMRC case about?
The appeal in Sweetmotion v HMRC considered HMRC’s decision to deny input tax under the Kittel principle.
In simple terms, the Kittel principle can allow HMRC to deny a business the right to deduct input tax where the relevant transactions are connected with VAT fraud and the business knew, or should have known, of that connection.
In this case, the taxpayer had already accepted that there had been fraudulent tax loss, that the relevant transactions were connected with that loss, and that the transactions formed part of an orchestrated scheme to defraud HMRC. The central issue for the Tribunal was therefore knowledge.
The Tribunal had to decide whether the business knew, or should have known, that the transactions were connected with fraud. It also had to consider the related company penalty and whether that penalty should be reduced.
Why did HMRC deny input tax under the Kittel principle?
HMRC denied input tax of £1,288,151 in relation to VAT periods March 2020 to June 2021.
- The denied input tax related to transactions with four immediate suppliers.
- HMRC’s case was that the relevant transactions were connected with fraudulent tax loss and that the taxpayer knew, or should have known, of that connection.
The Tribunal did not uphold HMRC’s position in full. It decided that input tax should only be denied for transactions on or after 19 January 2021.
That date mattered because the Tribunal found that the taxpayer’s position changed after it received education from HMRC in January 2021. From that point, the Tribunal concluded that the business should have known that the transactions were connected with fraud.
This is an important distinction. The Tribunal did not simply accept that HMRC could deny input tax for the whole period. It looked carefully at when the taxpayer had enough information to be fixed with the relevant knowledge.
When can HMRC argue that a business should have known about VAT fraud?
The “should have known” test is often the battleground in Kittel cases.
HMRC does not always need to prove that a taxpayer actually knew about the fraud. It may be enough to show that, viewed objectively, the taxpayer should have known that its transactions were connected with fraud.
That can depend on a range of factors, including
- the nature of the market,
- the commercial features of the transactions,
- due diligence,
- supplier checks,
- payment arrangements,
- profit margins,
- trading patterns; and
- warnings received from HMRC.
In Sweetmotion, the timing of HMRC education was important. The Tribunal accepted that HMRC’s inaction after being told the identity of suppliers may have given the taxpayer some comfort. However, after the taxpayer had received education from HMRC, the Tribunal found that it should have known of the connection with fraud.
For businesses, this shows why HMRC meetings, warning letters and educational visits must be treated seriously. They may become important evidence later if HMRC argues that the business was on notice of risk.
How did cooperation affect the VAT penalty?
HMRC had issued a company penalty of £386,445.30 under section 69C of the VAT Act 1994.
Because the Tribunal only upheld the denial of input tax from 19 January 2021, the penalty also had to be recalculated so that it related only to the transactions after that date.
The Tribunal also accepted that the taxpayer had cooperated clearly with HMRC. It considered a 25 per cent reduction of the company penalty to be appropriate.
This part of the decision is practically important. Cooperation will not necessarily defeat a Kittel assessment, and it will not remove a penalty where the statutory basis for that penalty is made out. However, proper cooperation can still make a real difference to mitigation.
For businesses under investigation, that does not mean giving unguarded answers or making unnecessary admissions. It means engaging carefully, preserving records, responding accurately and ensuring that the business’s position is properly explained.
What should businesses take from this decision?
Sweetmotion v HMRC is useful because it shows that Kittel disputes are often highly fact-sensitive.
- HMRC may seek to deny input tax across a broad period, but the Tribunal may still examine whether knowledge can properly be established for each part of that period. In this case, the taxpayer’s appeal succeeded in part because the Tribunal drew a line between the position before and after HMRC education had been received.
- The decision also shows that businesses should not ignore the penalty stage. Even where HMRC succeeds on part of the input tax denial, there may still be arguments about the amount of the penalty, mitigation and whether HMRC has correctly calculated the assessment.
- The wider lesson is that businesses facing Kittel assessments need to act early. They should review the basis of HMRC’s allegations, identify the alleged fraud connection, examine when HMRC says knowledge arose, and consider whether the evidence supports that timeline.
A VAT fraud allegation can have serious financial and reputational consequences. However, it should still be tested carefully. The key questions are what the business knew, what it should reasonably have known, and whether HMRC has applied the Kittel principle and penalty rules correctly.
Andy Lynch and and the team at FWJ dealt with a HMRC compliance check. Cannot recommend them enough, approachable, Knowledgeable, professional and above all else got the desired result. Will not hesitate in dealing with them again if required.
A client we helped with an HMRC compliance check
