Mobilx Ltd (in administration) v HMRC [2010] EWCA Civ 517

Kittel gives the principle; Mobilx gives it English law content. Moses LJ rejected HMRC’s broad “means of knowledge” test and set a demanding standard: a trader should have known only where fraud was the only reasonable explanation for the circumstances. HMRC pleads something looser almost every time.

The Case Every MTIC Appeal Turns On

Kittel v Belgian State (C-439/04) supplies the principle: a trader who knew or should have known that his purchase was connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT loses the right to deduct. Mobilx supplies the English law content of that principle, and it is Mobilx that HMRC and appellants actually argue about in the First-tier Tribunal.

Its central contribution is a definition of “should have known” that is considerably more demanding than the way HMRC habitually pleads it.

The Facts

The Court of Appeal heard four appeals together, all arising from the wholesale trade in mobile telephones and computer components, the classic missing trader intra-community fraud sectors of the period.

In each case HMRC had denied input tax on the basis that the appellant’s transactions traced back through a chain to a defaulting trader who had charged VAT and disappeared without accounting for it. None of the appellants was alleged to be the fraudster. The question in each was whether they knew, or should have known, of the connection.

The appeals reached the Court of Appeal from differing tribunal outcomes, which is what allowed the Court to address the underlying test rather than merely the facts of one case.

The Issue

HMRC contended for a broad formulation: that the right to deduct should be denied where the trader had the means of knowledge that the transaction was connected with fraud. On that approach, a trader who could have discovered the connection by making proper enquiries would lose the deduction regardless of what he actually appreciated.

The appellants contended that the test was narrower and that the Court of Justice in Kittel had not licensed a negligence standard.

The Ratio Decidendi

Why the rejection of “means of knowledge” matters

Moses LJ’s reasoning is that Kittel operates by treating the trader as a participant in the fraud. That characterisation cannot sensibly be applied to someone who was merely careless. A trader who failed to make enquiries he ought to have made may have been negligent; that does not make him an accomplice. If HMRC’s formulation had been accepted, the denial of input tax would have become a sanction for poor commercial hygiene rather than a consequence of participation.

The corollary for due diligence

The Court also addressed the other side of the coin. Due diligence is not a talisman: a trader cannot insulate himself by performing checks whose results he then ignores, or by carrying out a paper exercise while the surrounding circumstances scream fraud. Conversely, the Kittel guarantee, that a trader who takes every precaution reasonably required of him may rely on the legality of his transactions, remains real.

The practical resolution is evidential. Contemporaneous, documented checks that were actually acted upon are powerful. Retrospective files assembled after HMRC intervened are not.

Obiter Dicta and Guidance

• The warning against “impressionistic” findings. Moses LJ’s observations that a tribunal must not simply accumulate adverse features and announce a conclusion are guidance on the conduct of the fact-finding exercise rather than a rule of law. They have nonetheless been highly influential, and are the foundation of the taxpayer’s argument in Davis & Dann Ltd v HMRC [2016] EWCA Civ 142 that the tribunal must stand back and consider the whole picture, including the commercial rationale for the trade.
• Comments on the role of due diligence. The Court’s remarks about what a trader should have done, and what checks would have revealed, are heavily fact-specific and should be treated as illustration rather than a checklist. HMRC frequently deploys them as though they were a standard.
• The relationship with abuse of rights. The Court’s distinction between the Kittel principle and the Halifax abuse doctrine is discussion rather than decision, but it is a useful reference where HMRC conflates the two, a point developed in our guide to VAT abuse of rights.

The Supporting Authorities

• Red 12 Trading Ltd v HMRC [2009] EWHC 2563 (Ch). Christopher Clarke J held that individual transactions must be viewed in the context of the whole, and that a tribunal is entitled to look at surrounding circumstances rather than examining each deal in isolation. Relied on constantly by HMRC.
• Megtian Ltd (in administration) v HMRC [2010] EWHC 18 (Ch). Briggs J held that a trader need not know the precise mechanics of the fraud.
• Fonecomp Ltd v HMRC [2015] EWCA Civ 39. Confirms that the trader need not know the identity of the defaulter or the details of the scheme; knowledge of a connection to a fraud suffices.
• Davis & Dann Ltd v HMRC [2016] EWCA Civ 142. A rare appellant success, emphasising that the tribunal must stand back and assess the totality rather than accumulating individually minor adverse indicators, and that genuine commercial reality matters.

Practitioner Application

Holding HMRC to the Mobilx standard

• Read HMRC’s statement of case against the test. Officers very frequently plead a case that amounts to “the appellant should have been suspicious” or “there were features that ought to have prompted further enquiry”. Neither is the test. Say so in terms, and quote Moses LJ.
• Offer the alternative explanation. Because the test asks whether fraud was the only reasonable explanation, the appellant’s job is to establish a competing explanation that is reasonable: a genuine commercial market, ordinary margins for the sector, a normal introduction, established counterparties. It does not have to be the better explanation; it has to be a reasonable one.
• Insist on all three limbs. HMRC must prove that there was a fraudulent evasion of VAT, that the appellant’s transactions were connected to it, and that the appellant knew or should have known. Never concede the first two because HMRC has produced a deal chain schedule; ask for the underlying evidence of the defaulter’s fraud.
• Use Davis & Dann against accumulation. Where HMRC’s case is a long list of individually minor features, argue that the tribunal must stand back rather than count.
• Build the contemporaneous due diligence record. VAT registration verification, company and credit searches, trade references, inspection of goods, insurance, freight and storage documents, dated, and shown to have been acted upon.
• Keep the penalty separate. A Kittel denial is not a penalty and involves no finding of dishonesty. Where HMRC also seeks a Schedule 24 penalty or a personal liability notice, those require separate proof of deliberate conduct and should be resisted independently.

Frequently Asked Questions