David Bedenham KC acted for a construction company in an appeal against an £800k Kittel assessment and s69C penalty relating to purchases of labour provided by various sub-contractors. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in relation to 90% of the disputed input tax and reduced the penalty amount to zero.

A copy of the decision can be found here.

This is the latest in a number of Kittel, penalty and personal liability successes for David, including:

• Z Ltd v HMRC (£850k Kittel assessment and s69C penalty relating to the purchase of confectionary and soft drinks) –  David cross-examined HMRC’s main witness over 2 days, following which HMRC conceded the appeal in full.

• Deos v HMRC (£1.2 million Kittel assessment and s69C penalty relating to purchases of electronic goods) – appeal allowed in full.

• Redrose Payroll v HMRC (£7 million Kittel assessment, s69C penalty relating to purchases of temporary labour, and Ablessio de-registration ) – appeal allowed in full.

• Cheema Construction Services v HMRC (Kittel, s69C penalty and 69D personal liability relating to construction related purchases/labour) – appeal allowed in full.

• PTGI Ltd v HMRC (£19 million Kittel assessment relating to purchases of VOIP airtime) – appeal allowed in full.

• Lynton Exports Ltd v HMRC (£4.8 million Kittel and Mecsek assessments relating to purchases and sales of soft drinks and confectionery) – appeal allowed in full.

• Bachra v HMRC (£1 million Schedule 24 personal penalty arising from a Kittel decision relating to purchase of alcohol) – appeal allowed in full.

• Ulster Metal Refiners Ltd v HMRC (Kittel assessment relating to purchases of soft drinks) – appeal allowed in relation to 90% of the disputed input tax.

• Z Limited v HMRC (October 2023) (£15million Kittel/Fini assessment relating to purchases of labour from “mini-umbrella” suppliers) - following David’s opening submissions, HMRC conceded the appeal in full.

• DJJ Services v HMRC (Kittel and s69C penalty relating to purchases of labour) – successful legal arguments (including time limits) resulted in HMRC conceding 70% of the deals and withdrawing the s69C penalty.

• XY v HMRC (December 2024) (£3million s69D penalty) - following representations drafted by David, HMRC withdrew the penalty in full.