Skip to content
Solved
SearchBrowse
Sign in

Contents

Official guidance
VAT Fraud

VATF53400 · The Kittel principle intervention: Kittel in more detail: What is meant by ‘knew or should have known’

  • VATF53405 · Introduction
  • VATF53410 · The meaning of 'knew or should have known' in relation to corporate entities
  • VATF53415 · Actual knowledge
  • VATF53420 · Extent of what a taxable person 'should have known'
  • VATF53425 · The only reasonable explanation
  • VATF53430 · General awareness
  • VATF53435 · Contrivance
  • VATF53440 · Reliance of a taxable person on a 'third party'
  1. The Kittel principle intervention: Kittel in more detail: What is meant by ‘knew or should have known’: Contents
  2. The Kittel principle intervention: Kittel in more detail: What is meant by ‘knew or should have known’: Contrivance

VATF53435 | The Kittel principle intervention: Kittel in more detail: What is meant by ‘knew or should have known’: Contrivance

From HM Revenue & Customs · VAT Fraud

As well as indicating whether a taxable person ‘must have known’, some of the contrivance features detailed in VATF60000 can also be used to show that the taxable person ‘should have known’, although not all of the features will be relevant. For example, we would not expect a taxable person to know about the uniformity of the mark ups applied by taxable persons further up/down the transaction chain. However, they would of course know about such things as inadequate insurance, contacts etc. in relation to their own transactions. Factors such as these may help to establish that their transactions were ‘too good to be true’ and that the only reasonable explanation was that they were connected with fraud.

PreviousNext
PrivacyTerms